The true difference betweene Christian subiection and unchristian rebellion wherein the princes lawfull power to commaund for trueth, and indepriuable right to beare the sword are defended against the Popes censures and the Iesuits sophismes vttered in their apologie and defence of English Catholikes: with a demonstration that the thinges refourmed in the Church of England by the lawes of this realme are truely Catholike, notwithstanding the vaine shew made to the contrary in their late Rhemish Testament: by Thomas Bilson warden of Winchester. Perused and allowed publike authoritie.

THE FOVRTH PART SHEWETH THE REFORMATION OF THIS Realme to be warranted by the word of God and the ancient faith of Christes Church, and the Iesuites for all their crakes to be nothing lesse than Catholikes. (Book 4)

Phi.

WHAT one point of our religion is not catholike?

Theo.

No one point of that, which this Realme hath refused, is truely catholike. Your hauing and adoring of images in the church: your publike seruice in a ••oung not vnderstood of the people: your gazing on the Priest whiles he alone eateth & drin∣keth at the Lordes table: your barring the people from the Lordes cup: your sacrificing the sonne of God to his father for the sinnes of the worlde: your adoring the elementes of bread and wine with diuine honour in stead of Christ: your seuen Sacramentes: your Shrift: your releasing soules out of Purga∣torie by prayers and pardons: your compelling Priestes to liue single: your me∣ritorious vowing and perfourming Pilgrimages: your inuocation of Saincts departed: your rules of perfection for Monkes and Friers: your relying on the Pope as head of the church, and Uicar generall vnto Christ: these with in∣finite other superstitions in action, and errors in doctrine wee deny to haue any foundation in the Scriptures, or confirmation in the generall consent or vse of the catholike church.

Phi.

We sticke not on your words, which you vtter to your most aduantage: but be not these things as we defend them, and you reiect them, Catholike?

The.

Nothing lesse.

Phi.

What count you catholike?

Theo.

You were best define that:* 1.1 it toucheth you neerest.

Phi

I meane catholike, as Vincentius doth, that wrote more than 1100. yeares ago.

Theo.

So do I. And in that sense no point of your religion, which this Realme hath refused, is catholike.

Phi.

All.

Theo.

None.

Phi.

These are but bragges.

Theo.

Indeede they are so. Nothing is more common in your mouthes than catholike: and in your faith nothing lesse.

Phi.

Who proueth that?

Theo.

Your selues, who after you haue made great s••urre for catholike, catholike, and all catholike, when you come to issue you returne it with a non est inuentus.

Phi.

Will you lie a litle?

Theo.

I might vse that some∣times, which is so often with you: but in this I do not.

Phi.

I say you do.

Theo.

That will appeare, if you take any of those points which I haue rehearsed.

Phi.

Which you will.

Theo.

Nay the choice shall be yours, because the proofe must be yours.

Phi.

Take them as they lie. Hauing and worshipping of Images in the church, is it not catholike?

Theo.

It is not.

Phi.

Eight hundred yeares agoe the generall councell of Nice, the second, decreed it lawfull and euer since it hath beene vsed.

Theo.

Catholike should haue foure conditions by Vincentius rule, &

this hath not one of them.* 1.2 There can nothing be catholike, vnlesse it be confir∣med two wayes: first by the authoritie of Gods law, and next by the traditiō of the catholike Church, not * 1.3 that the canon of the Scripture is not perfect & sufficient enough for all pointes of faith, but because many men drawe and stretch the Scriptures to their fansies, * 1.4 therefore it is verie needefull that the line of the Propheticall and Apostolicall interpretation should bee directed by the rule of the eccl••siasticall and catholike sense.* 1.5 Now in the catholike Church her selfe we must take heede wee hold that, which hath beene be∣leeued, at all times, in all places, of all persons, for that is truely and proper∣ly catholike.

By this rule your erecting & adoring of images in the church is not catholike.* 1.6 For first it is prohibited by gods law: & where y^e text goeth against you, the gloze cānot hel•• you. If there be no precept for it in y^e word of god, in vaine do you seek in the church for the catholike sense and interpretation of that which is no where found in the Scriptures. If it bee not Propheticall nor Apostolical, it cannot be catholike nor ecclesiasticall.

Againe,* 1.7 how hath this beene alwaies in the church, which was first decreed 780. yeares after Christ? It is too yong to bee catholike that began so late, you must go neerer Christ & his Apostles, if you wil haue it catholike or ancient.

Thirdly al places & persons did not admit the decrees of that coūcell. For be∣sides Africa & Asia the greater,* 1.8 which neuer receiued them, the churches of Eng¦land, France & Germanie did contradict & refute both their actions & reasons. And in Greece it selfe not long before, a Synod of* 1.9 330. Bishops at Constan∣tinople condemned aswel the suffering as reuerencing of images.

Phi.

The most part of this that you say is false: the rest we litle regard, so lōg as we be sure the church of Rome stood fast w^t vs.

Theo.

Al that I said is true: & as for the church of Rome, she can make nothing catholike. That the church of England detested that 2. councell of Nice: Roger Houeden, that liued 400. yeares agoe, witnesseth. Charles the king of France sent ouer into England, the Actes of a Synod sent him from Constantinople: Where, out alas, are found ma∣ny vnseemely things & contrary to the true faith, specially for that it is there confirmed with the general assent of all the East teachers,* 1.10 to wit, of 300. Bi∣shops & moe, that images ought to be adored, the which the church of God vtterly detesteth. Against the which Albinus wrote an epistle maruelously groūded on the autority of the diuine scriptures, & caried it with the said Sy∣nodical acts in the name of our (english) Bishops & princes to the K. of France.

Charles two yeares after called a great Synod of the Bishops of Fraunce,* 1.11 Italie and Germanie, at Franckford: where the 2. councell of Nice was reie∣cted and refuted.

Phi.

Nay the councell of Constantinople against images was there reuersed and explosed.

Theo.

Your friendes haue done what they could, to make that seeme likely, and many of your stories run that way for life, but the worst is, the men that liued and wrate in that verie age doe marre your plaie. Regino saith:* 1.12 Pseudo synodus Graecorum, quam pro adorandis imaginibus fecerant,

à Pontificibus reiecta est. The false Synode of the Graecians which they made for defence of the worshipping of images, was reiected by the Bishops (as∣sembled at Franckford vnder Charles.) Hincmarus Archbishop of Remes, then lyuing when these thinges were in freshe memorie, saieth thus of Charles his Councell:* 1.13 The seuenth general councell so called by the Graecians (in deed a wicked councell) touching images, which some would haue to be broken in peeces, & some to be worshipped, was kept not long before my time by a number of Bishops gathered togither at Nice and sent to Rome, which al∣so the Bishop of Rome directed into France. Wherfore in the raigne of Charls the great, (the Sea Apostolike willing it so to bee) a generall Synode was kept in Germany by the conuocation of the said Emperour, and there by the rule of the Scriptures & doctrine of the fathers the false councel of the Grae∣cians was confuted, & vtterly reiected. Of whose confutation t••ere was a good big booke sent to Rome by certaine Bishops from Charles, which in my yong yeares I read in the Palace.

Vrspergensis hath bin vnder the file of some monkish deprauer, as many o∣ther writers & fathers haue bin. For in him you haue razed out the name of the citie of Nice & put in Cōstantinople, to make men beleeue the Synod of Frāck∣ford condemned, not the 2. Nicene councel that setled adoration of images, but an other of Constantinople that banished images. Vrspergensis saieth, The Synod, which not long before was assembled vnder Irene & Constantine her sonne in Constantinople called by them the seuenth generall councell, was there (in the councell of Franckford) reiected by them all as void, and not to be named the 7. or any thing else. Here some foolish forgerer hath added these words (in Constantinople) whereas it is euident, the councel vnder Irene and Constantine her sonne, was kept at Nice, & not at Constantinople, & Hincma∣rus that liued in the time of Charles and read the booke it selfe of the Synode of Frāckford, when it was first made, saith the Bishops assembled in Germany by Charles vtterly reiected & refuted the councel of Nice, called the seuenth ge∣nerall councell.

The very same words (at Constantinople) are in the actes of the councell of Frākford, as Laurētius Surius * 1.14 saith, though very falsly; for though that I find in the booke it selfe, & contrary to the plaine words, in many places and namely in the 4. booke, 13. chapter, where they are refelled from comparing themselues with the 1. Nicene councell, because they were assembled in the same city, & so li. 4. ca. 24. But if the words had bin conueied in, as they are not, (except Surius copie be framed by Surius himself to verifie his own saying) what proofe is this that the Synod of Franckford neuer de••reed against adoration of Images, but rather with it, as that mouthie Frier obserueth, where the reasons and authori∣ties of the 2. Nicene councell for adoring images, are truely and fully refuted throughout those foure bookes? And his conclusion, that wee haue forged those bookes, & conueied them into the Popes library, where they ly written in aun∣cient characters, as the * 1.15 keeper of the Popes library confesseth, is like the

rest and not vnlike himselfe, who careth not what he writeth, so it serue his hu∣mour, and helpe his cause.

For otherwise who that were master of himselfe, would suppose it easier for vs to forge foure whole bookes in Charles name, and to write them in auncient handes, and thrust them into the Popes librarie and into many other churches and Abbaies, and no man spie it, than for you hauing the bookes so many hun∣dreth yeares in your keeping to put in this one word (Constantinople?) And if our lucke were so good, to forge so neere the Popes nose, and not be descried, who forged Hin••marus, Regino, Houeden, Vrspergensis, Adon, Auentine and others that testifie the Councell of Frankford refuted the false Synode which the Graecians kept * 1.16 Pro odorandis imaginibus, For the adoring of images? If you were so negligent, as to suffer so many to be forged against you and laide in your libraries, & you not find it: how iust cause haue wee to perswade our selues that you would winke with both eies, when others should be corrupted to make for your purpose?

Phi.

Many,* 1.17 you know, report for vs, that Charles and his councell condem∣ned the breakers of images; and a number of your owne side confesse the same.

Theo.

In stories we must not respect the number & vehemencie, but the antiqui∣tie and sinceritie of the authors. Two hundreth, that liued long after, & were not acquainted with the deedes themselues: can not counteruaile two that li∣ued in the same age, and had the full perusing of their actes. Againe your later writers were all addicted to images, and therefore they would not acknowlege that euer the councell of Franckford condemned the councell of Nice for ado∣ring images. Lastly it is not altogether a lie when they say the councell of Franckford refused the councell of Constantinople. For where the councell of Constantinople said it was idolatrie to haue them, and the councell of Nice defined it lawfull to worship them,* 1.18 the councell of Franckford, as Hincmarus confesseth, liked neither, but held it a thing indifferent to haue them, & adiudged it a meere impiety to worship them.

Phi

Then hauing of images,* 1.19 you graunt, was catholike, though the wor∣shipping of them, in some places were not so taken.

Theo.

The hauing of ima∣ges was neuer catholike, and the worshipping of them was euer wicked, by the iudgement of Christes church.

Phi.

At this time the West church did not gainesay the hauing of them

Theo.

The West church at this time vsed them on∣ly as ornamentes, and monumentes for the ruder sort to learne the liues and deathes of ancient & vndoubted Martyrs: but if you forget not your selfe, you bee 800. yeres too short of catholik; & euen then by the churches of Englād, France, Spaine, and Germanie, was the worshipping of images detested and refuted as contrary to the christian faith.

Phi.

By worshipping and adoring of images, we doe not meane, that god∣ly honor should be giuen to them, but only a kinde of external dutie & reuerence with the gesture of the body, as kneeling, kissing, censing, religious holding vp of eyes and handes before them, with such like signes of outwarde submission.

Theo.

* 1.20Neither do I thinke that Adrian the Bishop of Rome, or the Grecians were so blas••hemous & brutish idolaters, that they decreed diuine honor to dead & sensles stocks: though your Schoolemē not long before our age came to that grosse & ••il••hy doctrine, & salued it with a vaine translatiō of the honor that was done to the image, as passing from the image to the principall it selfe represen∣ted by the image: But the Grecians I thinke ment an externall regard & reue∣rence, such as is giuen to the sacred vessels, bookes, & elementes that are vsed in baptisme & at the Lords Supper.* 1.21 For those be their owne comparisons though their words be adoration & veneration: & yet that externall & corporall honor giuen to images the West Bishops abhorred as neither catholike, nor christiā, and the church of Christ long before them condemned as hereticall.

Gregory the first, 200. yeares before Charles called the councel of Frāckford, thought it not amisse to haue painted histories suffred in y^e church, but in no wise the pictures to be worshipped.* 1.22 Your brotherhood, saith he to Serenus Bishop of Massilia; seeing certaine worshippers of images, brake the said images and cast thē out of the church. The zeale which you had that nothing made with hands should be worshipped, we praise: but we thinke you should not haue broken those images.* 1.23 For painting is therefore vsed in churches, that they which are vnlearned may by sight read that in the walles, which in bookes they cānot. Your brotherhood should therefore haue spared the breaking of thē, & yet restrained the people frō worshipping them, that the rude might haue had, how to come by the knowledge of the story, & yet the people not * 1.24 sinne in worshipping the picture. Painted stories, Gregory thought might be tolerated in the church, for the simple to learne the deathes and martyrdoms of many Saints, which in bookes they could not: but as for worshipping them, he confesseth the people should sinne in doing it, and the Bishop did well in kee∣ping them from it.* 1.25

And treating in an other place of the same matter, he saith: The children of the church now disperced are to be called togither, and taught by the testi∣monies of the sacred scriptures, that nothing made with hands may be wor∣shipped. And so concludeth, adoration of images by all meanes auoide.

S. Ambrose speaking of that crosse, on which Christ was crucified, saith: He∣lena found the title, & worshipped the king, not the wood surely: for that is the error of the Gentiles, and vanitie of the wicked. S. Augustine requiring the M••nichees to shew what one thing they could mislike in y^e catholik church: Bring me not, saith he, such christians as either knowe not or keepe not the force of their profession. Rake not after the rude sort, which euen in true reli∣gion are intangled with superstition. My selfe know many that are worship∣pers of tombes and pictures. I warne you that you cease to speake euill of the catholike church, by carping (these) mens maners, whome the church her selfe condemneth, and seeketh euery day to correct thē as vngracious chil∣dren.

Marcellina is reckoned and detested as an heretike by Ireneus, Epiphanius

and Augustine,* 1.26 for hauing the images of Christ and Paul in her closet, and set∣ting garlandes on their heades and burning incense to them. Marcellina, sayth Austen, was of Carpocrates sect, and worshipped the images of Iesu, Paul, Homere and Pythagoras with bowing her selfe & burning incense. So sayth Epiphanius. Of this sect was Marcillina of Rome. Shee made secretly the i∣mages of Iesu and Paul, and Homere and Pithagoras, and burned incense to thē & worshipped thē. And charging the whole sect of Carpocrates, with the same fault, he saith: The heretikes called Gnostici, Besides all this, haue ima∣ges painted with colours, and some of gold and siluer, which they say are the images of Iesu, and made in the time of Pontius Pilate, when (Christ) was conuersant amongst men. These they keepe closely. And so doth Ireneus al∣so witnesse,* 1.27 they all restrayning and adiudging it to be heresie and idolatry to cense & bow to the image of Christ or Paul, as wel as to the image of Homer or Aristotle.

Phil.

Not so neither.

Theo.

Yeas euen so. This in manifest wordes is recko∣ned by these three fathers for a speciall point & part of their wickednes as well as the worshipping of other Philosophers images.* 1.28

Phi.

Put you no distin∣ction betweene the images of Christ, & other prophane persons?

Theo.

The worshipping of either, is heathenisme & idolatry.

Phi.

Call you the image of Christ an Idole?

Theo.

Not vnlesse it be worshipped: but if it be, then is it an I∣doll, & incense burnt vnto it, is idolatrie.

Phi.

How proue you that?

Theo.

If the iudgement of christes church in accompting them heretikes for that act do not weigh heauie enough with you, the law of God cōfirmeth the same.

Phi.

Where?

The.

You be not I trust to seek of that which euery child with vs cā say:* 1.29 Thou shalt make thee no grauen image, nor the likenes of any thing that is in hea∣uen aboue, or the earth beneath, or in the waters vnder the earth. Thou shalt not bow down to them, nor worship them.

Phi.

Doth this precept touch the image of Christ?

Theo.

It toucheth any thing made with handes, that is worshipped, be it the image of God, of Christ, or of whō you wil.

Phi.

No Sir, it toucheth the images of false Gods, but not of the true God: for they be Idols, that are nothing.

Theo.

Wee speake not of the thinges them-selues but of their images made with handes. A false God is an idole in the heart of man, and so are all thinges in heauen and earth, to the which wee giue any such ghostlie or bodilie honour as God hath prohi∣bited. Sainct Paul calleth the * 1.30 couetous man a worshipper of idols: of o∣thers hee saieth, * 1.31 whose God is their bellie, teaching vs, that, whatsoeuer we loue,* 1.32 serue or obey against the commaundement of God, we make it our God by preferring it before the wil and precepts of the true God: & in that it is our god, which of it selfe is not God, it is an idoll, & the loue, seruice, and honour, that is so yeelded to it, is idolatrie by the lawe of god. For this cause, the bowing our knees, and holding vp our hands to an image, though it bee not all the honour we ow and yeeld to god, yet is it such honor as he hath prohibited to be giuen to any thing made with handes, and in that respect our aduised and determined do∣ing

it against his commaundement is idolatrie, For his precept is resolute: Thou shalt not make thee the likenes of any thing in heauen or earth,* 1.33 thou shalt not bow thy selfe before them, nor serue them.

Phi.

This may not bee vnderstood of the image of the true God. For if the i∣mages of Princes may be reuerenced, & idolatry not committed, much more the image of God.

Theo.

Earthly similitudes of your making, may not controule the heauenly precepts of Gods owne giuing. The images of Princes may not wel be despited or abused, least it be taken as a signe of a malicious hart against the Prince, but bowing the knee or lifting vp the hand to the image of a Prince is flat & ineuitable idolatrie.

Phi.

The image of God deserueth more honor thā the images of mē in respect of the person that is resembled.

The.

You heard the plaine precept of God commaunding no such honor to bee giuen to any image made with handes, no not to the image of himselfe.

Phi.

* 1.34I heare you so interprete, but I heare not him so command.

Theo.

You may when you wil, the scripture in that point is very cleare. Moses the reporter of the law from Gods owne mouth, laying foorth the ground of the second pre∣cept, saith:* 1.35 The Lord spake vnto thee out of the midst of the fire: and yee heard the voice of the words, but sawe no similitude. Take therefore good heede to your selues, for you saw no image (of God) in the day that the Lord spake vnto you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire: that ye corrupt not your selues, and make you a grauen image (of God) or likenes of any figure whe∣ther it be of male or female, or of any beast that is on earth: And so along pur∣suing the seuerall branches of the second commandement. They saw no shape of God, least they should make them any image of God, contrary to that which hee had commaunded them.

* 1.36By this precept Esaie proueth that God should not be figured. To whome then will you liken God? or what similitude will you set vp vnto him? And sharply rebuking the people for not remembring that part of the law, wherein they were charged to make no likenesse nor similitude vnto God,* 1.37 he saith; Know ye nothing? Haue ye not heard it? hath it not beene told you from the be∣ginning? Not meaning any secret or priuate instruction of man, but the open & written law of God, which was then deliuered them, when they first became the people of God.* 1.38 So that aswell the writer, as the interpreter of the law yeeld this to be the sense of the second precept, that no similitude or likenes should be made vnto God because no such image cā resemble the brightnes of his glory, but on∣ly demonstrate the basenesse of our fansie.

Phi.

We talke not of making similitudes vnto God that be vnlike him, but of worshipping those that be like him.

Theo.

And since none can be made, that is like him, the bowing to any is not the honoring of him, but the seruing of idols, which he ahhorreth. Againe, the first part of this precept, Thou shalt not make thee any grauen image,* 1.39 nor the likenes of any thing, directly concerning the shapes and images that any man would or could make vnto God, as Moses and Esaie doe witnesse, the rest of the same precept: Thou shalt not bowe

downe to them, nor serue them, must needes be referred to the selfesame simi∣litudes and figures which before were prohibited to be made. Thirdly if any grauen Image of God might be worshipped, why might it not be made, since it cannot be worshiped vntill it be made? God therefore prohibiting it to be made, instructeth vs that though it were made, it should not be worshiped. And to that end God himselfe protesteth,* 1.40 My glorie will I not giue to an other, nor my praise to grauen Images; meaning no part of the honor and seruice that is due vnto him, whether it bee spirituall, as feare, loue, faith, obe∣dience, praiers and thankes: or corporall; as bowing the knee, lifting vp the hand, burning incense, and such like, which are Idolatries when they are done to Images as wel as the former kindes of inward and Ghostly worship.

Phi.

Idolatries they be, when they be doone to the Images of false Gods which are Idols; not otherwise.

Theo.

False Gods by nature there are none:* 1.41 We know, saith the Apostle, that an Idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one, and he is wholy trueth: But the shape or figure made with hands, to resemble the true God, whatsoeuer it be, is an Idoll, prohibited by Gods Law, as I haue proued; and therefore bowing the knee, or holding vp the hand to it, is Idolatry condemned by that precept which I last repeated, Thou shalt not bow thy selfe to them, nor serue them.

Phi.

What? not to the Image of the true God?

Theo.

The Image of the true God,* 1.42 made with hands, is a false God, and no likenesse of his, but a lewd imagi∣nation of yours, set vp to feede your eyes with the contempt of his sacred wil, dishonour of his holy name, and open iniurie to his diuine nature. For what resemblance hath a dead and dombe stocke, shapened like a man, to the glorious, inuisible and infinite Maiestie of the liuing and euerlasting God? Howe are you not afraide to defend the worshipper, when God accurseth the maker of any such carued or molten Image; as being an abomination in his sight? Doth your cunning or conscience serue you to gaine-say the manifest voice of God himselfe speaking by his Prophet?* 1.43 To whom now will you liken me, that I should be like (him) saith the holy one?

Phi.

We be not so foolish as to thinke the shape of a mortal man resembleth the incomprehensible substance of the deitie.

Theo

God graunt you be not. Doe you then acknowledge, that euery likenesse made with hands to represent the God of heauen,* 1.44 is an Idole?

Phi.

Euerie likenes: what meane you by that?

Theo.

I meane the likenes of man, woman, or of any other creature in heauen or earth.

Phi.

It is somwhat hard to call the Image of God an Idol.

Theo.

To call that an Idol which man maketh for an Image vnto God, since God himselfe refuseth euery such likenes, and pronounceth it* 1.45 accursed and abo∣minable, is no hardnes at al. Yea rather to giue it a better name, were to make God a liar, and in spite of his spirite to saue the Iewes and Gentils from that Idolatrie, wherewith they were charged, and for the which they be con∣demned in the scriptures. For the things which they worshipped, they thought to be the Images of God, and in that respect did they honour not them so much

as God by them, supposing them to be his Images.

Phi.

The Gentils and Iewes that were Idolaters, worshipped false Gods and not the Image of the true God.

Theo.

Their false Gods were the workes of mens hands made to resemble in their conceit the true God.* 1.46 The children of Israell did not thinke their golden Calfe to bee a God, but minding to haue some monument of God alwaies in their sight to stirre them to deuoti∣on, they made choice of a calfe, because they had seene such Images set vp to God in Egypt, where the people seruing God in that visible shape were weal∣thie and mightie, by which blessings they coniectured God was wel pleased with the seruice of Egypt; and therfore to testifie their thankefulnesse for their deliu••rance, they erected an Image vnto god their deliuerer, and proclaimed * 1.47an holy day, (not to the calfe but) vnto the Lord. The mother of Micheala * 1.48vowed siluer vnto the Lord, to make a grauen and molten Image. Which she after perfected and named Teraphim, building a chapel and entertaining a Leuite for it, in the honor no doubt of him to whom the siluer was first dedicated.

The Iewes in all their generations knewe there was no god but one, and yet seeing the Gentils that serued god in the shape of a man or likenes of other creatures, to prosper and liue at hearts ease, and oftentimes to be Lordes ouer them that were the people of god,* 1.49 they fell to the manners of the nations round about them, and honored as they thought the true god of Israell with bodily shapes and figures, whereas god by his prophets notwithstanding their good intentions reiected and reproued that their seruice as doone to strange gods and Idols.* 1.50 Yea Baal it selfe, which the Scripture detesteth as a most infa∣mous Idole, was nothing els but a corporall Image erected vnto god: by which the people dreampt they serued and pleased god, as may be gathered by Osee where god promiseth to receiue Israell vnto fauour and to cause them to cease from their Idolatrous dishonouring him with the name of Baal. * 1.51 At that day saith the Lord, thou shalt call me no more Baal: and by Esay where god denieth the Images that were set vppe for him, to bee * 1.52 like vnto him.

The very heathens were not so blind as to beleeue the things which they made with their hands were gods, neither did they set them vp as gods, but rather as Images vnto god, whom they thought to bee delighted with that kinde of visible and voluntarie seruice.* 1.53 Sainct Ambrose saith of them: Gentes lignum adorant, quia Dei Imaginem putant: The heathen worship their (peeces of) wood, because they thinke them to bee the Images of God. Themselues could answere the Christians in that sort, as Celsus in Origen:* 1.54 Quod si vel lapidem negent, vel lignum, vel aes, vel aurum Deum esse, ridiculum profecto erit id sapere. Quis enim eà nisi stolidus quispiam pro Dijs ha∣buerit? Sed Deorum sunt ista vel sacra vel effigies quaedam. If the (Christians) denie things made of wood▪ stone, brasse or gold to be God, we graunt that were a ridiculous opinion. Who but a starke foole did euer account them

for Gods? Yet these are seruices vnto the Goddes, or else certain resemblan∣ces of the Goddes.* 1.55 So Lactantius witnesseth of them: Non ipsa, inquiunt, time∣mus, sed eos ad quorum Imaginem ficta & quorum nominibus consecrata sunt. (The heathen) vse to say, we stand not in awe of these (Images) but of them after whose likenes they be figured, & in whose names they be dedicated. Their wordes in Clemens are:* 1.56 Nos ad honorem inuisibilis Dei visibiles Imagines adora∣mus: Wee worship the images which we may see, in the honour of that God which can not be seene: And in S. Austen, Nec simulachrum, nec Daemonium colo, sed per effigiem corporalem eius rei signum intueor quam colere debeo. I wor∣ship neither the Image,* 1.57 nor the Diuel: but by a corporal figure I behold the signe of that which I ought to worshippe. Saint Paul chargeth all the Gen∣tiles not with hauing new Goddes, or other Goddes, but for turning the trueth of God vnto a lie (to witte,) the glorie of the incorruptible GOD to the similitude of the Image of a corruptible man, which they made and honoured as the Images of the true GOD.

Grosser idolatrie than the which can not bee committed.* 1.58 For if to worship the creatures them-selues which are the workes of Gods handes, and wherein his eternall power and diuinitie doe appeare, were palpable Idolatrie: howe inexcusable is it to serue the woorkes of our owne handes and the shadowes of those creatures prepared by art and applied by our vaine conceite to resemble the creator? you must therefore either graunt euery likenes made with handes, and set vp for an image vnto God, to be an idole, or else excuse both Iewes and Gentiles from idolatrie; which I trust you will not.

Phi.

The gentiles knew not God,* 1.59 and for that cause could set vp no Image vnto God, but vnto their owne ignorant imagination of God.

Theo.

And you that presume to knowe god, if you set vp such images vnto god as the gentiles did, which knewe him not; you bee ranker Idolaters than they were. The more knowledge you haue of god, the more sure you bee that those thinges made with handes bee no way like vnto god, and that hee vtterly detesteth and expressely forbiddeth both the making and the reuerencing of all such Images as woorkemen coulde deuise for him, were they Pagans, Iewes or Christians.

Phi.

What if we grant you that god should not be figured?* 1.60

Theo.

Then you must also grant that euery image erected vnto god is an idole.

Phi.

The figures of beastes, birds, woormes and other vnreasonable creatures made to resemble god are idoles.

Theo.

And so is the figure of a man: Moses teaching the children of Israel so much in precise termes: Take heede that you corrupt not your selues & make you a grauen image or representation of any figure, whether it be of man or woman: And S. Paul affirming of the gentiles, that whē they knew God, they did not glorifie him as God, but became vaine by their dis∣courses (of reason) & their foolish hart was ful of darknes, in that they turned the glory of the incorruptible god to the likenes of the image of a corrup∣tible man. The same you may see in * 1.61 Dauid & Esay: where y^e shape of man set vp

for an Image vnto God, is directly condemned for an Idole; as well in the Iewes that knew God, as in the Gentiles that knew him not. Whether it bee therefore the likenes of man, beast, bird, worme, fish, or whatsoeuer creature in heauen or earth, if it be made or vsed as an image vnto God, it is an Idole: & the submission of the knee, & deuotion of the hands, that is, any reuerent and religi∣ous gesture vnto it, is Idolatrie.

Phi.

Al this yet toucheth not vs.

Theo.

Doth it not? first what answere can you make for figuring the Image of the most blessed & glorious Trinitie, some∣tymes with three faces, as in your common * 1.62 prayer bookes printed in the late raign of Queene Mary, & sometime like * 1.63 an old man hauing a long gray beard and his sonne sitting by him with a doue betweene them: as in most of your Churches and Oratories: what answere I say can you make for these notori∣ous and enormous impieties? Not onely the adoring, but the very making of such pictures is abominable, and the selfesame frensie that GOD reuenged in Iewes and Gentiles with horrible plagues. Secondly if to worship the image of God made by art, with kneeling, censing, or holding vp the hands be against the law of God, and condemned in the Scriptures for the seruice of Idols, how can your adoration of Images not only with corporall gestures, but with spi∣rituall prayers and vowes be Catholike, or that Councel bee Christian, which first decreed,* 1.64 the Images of all Saintes, men and weomen, might perfectly & openly bee adored?

Phi.

We were not the makers of those pictures of the Trinitie.

Theo.

We know you be neither Printers nor Caruers: but you were the sufferers, allow∣ers, proposers and commenders of these pictures vnto the people: and in that respect your sinne is farre greater than theirs that were only the painters and grauers of them,* 1.65 though there lye a curse euen on thē for their wicked labour & trauel, to haue God dishonoured by their art and industrie.

Phi.

The Images of the Trinitie wee will not * 1.66 defend, because your tongues are so bent against them: and yet the Catholikes did not sinne in doing their deuotions to God by those or any other occasions.

Theo.

The people are in good case to haue such teachers as you be. The figuring of the trinitie the most of you dare not defende (though your Rhemish obseruers haue the faces to defend any thing) because the Law of God is direct against it, pronouncing all such resemblances of God to bee * 1.67 an abomination vnto him: and yet you closely encourage your Catho∣likes to continue their former liking of those pictures, and by some smoothe wordes would faine make them beleeue they serue God, when they honour that which God openly reiecteth as an Idole.

Phi.

* 1.68Against the Images of Christ and his saints you haue no such excep∣tion; why then mislike you that those should bee worshipped?

Theo.

If the I∣mage of Christes diuine nature may not bee worshipped, much lesse may the figure of his humane flesh framed of wood or stone be so highly reuerenced. Se∣condly man himselfe is a perfecter and truer Image of Christ than any can bee made with hands, and yet for all that you neither doe, nor may offer to worship

any mortal man. Thirdly if ought should be worshipped in the painted and car∣ued Images of Christ, it must be the matter, or the forme. The matter is wood, stone, brasse, siluer or some other metal: in which is no religion. The forme is nothing but the skill and draught of the crafts-man, proportioning a shape not like vnto Christ whom he neuer sawe, but as his owne fansie leadeth him: and in that case you worshippe not the similitude of our Sauiour, but the conceite of the maker.* 1.69 Fourthly the workeman is euer better than the woorke; for so much as there is no grace in the Image which came not from the Caruer. And since no man boweth to the workman, why should you kneele to the work of his handes? Lastly see you not howe absurd it is, that * 1.70 men which haue reason, sense and life should worship thinges that are voyde of reason, senselesse & deade? * 1.71 Wherefore doubt you not but there is no religion (or deuotion) wheresoeuer there is an Image. Religion consisteth of diuine things, and no∣thing is diuine, but that which is heauenly: Images ergo are farre from (de∣uotion and) religion, since there is nothing in them that is heauenly, they consisting of earth.

Phi.

You reason as though wee worshipped the earthly matter or shape, and not rather the thinges represented by them.

Theo.

If you talke of worship∣ping Christ and not his image,* 1.72 we yeeld to you without any farther speach that you must worship him with all humilitie as the naturall, true and onely sonne of God: but what is that to the adoration of his image made with hands, which you defend to be Catholique?

Phi.

May wee not giue some reuerence to the Image of Christ, though he be in heauen: as well as you doe to the thrones and letters of Princes, when themselues be not present?

Theo.

Haue you no su∣rer ground of your catholike doctrine for adoring images, than a single simili∣tude taken from the ciuill and externall reuerence that is yeelded to Princes seates and Seales?

Phi.

Yeas we haue surer: but first answere this.

Theo.

This is not so sure as you thinke.

Phi.

Sure or vnsure, what say you to it?

Theo.

First that pain∣ted and carued Images,* 1.73 be neither the Seates nor Seales of Christ, and so no sequele from those to these. Next that the ciuill honour which is due to Princes can bee no president for any religious honour to bee giuen to Images: Espe∣cially the same God, which commaundeth eche man to honour the King, for∣biddeth all men to bowe them-selues to any Similitude of his made with handes.

Phi.

Let them haue some reuerence yet, either religious or ciuill for his sake whome they represent.

Theo.

If a man shoulde make a seale like the Princes, or nayle vp cloth of Tissue where the Prince is not, and say it is a chayre of state, would you bee so foolish as to regard either of them, or shoulde you not dishonour the king if you did reuerence them, since they bee not such thinges as the Prince accepteth or vseth for his, but other mens counterfaites?

Phi.

I speake of that Chaire where the Prince did sit, and of that Seale which the Prince did send.

Theo.

I knowe you did, and therefore I refused your

similitude as vnlike the matter in question betwixt vs: because images are nei∣ther places of Christes presence,* 1.74 nor witnesses of his will, as Seates and seales are vnto Princes: no nor ordayned, allowed or admitted by Christ to haue any credite or vse about his heauenly person or pleasure; but only proposed by men of a naturall and kind affection as they thought towards Christ: though cleane without warrant, and so without thankes from him. For hee of purpose tooke his bodily presence from the eyes of men that hee might dwell in their heartes by fayth,* 1.75 and to teach vs to honour him not by that proportion of face which the painter would drawe, but by that abundance of loue, grace and mercie, which hee hath extended on vs and layde in stoare for vs, and which no corpo∣rall eyes can behold, nor colours expresse, but onely the hearing of his woorde and woorking of his spirite can lighten and perswade the heart of man to con∣ceiue and beleeue.

Phi.

Is it not thankes woorthie with God to haue alwayes the shape of his sonne before our eyes, that wee may honour him with our hearts?

Theo.

To honour him with your heartes, and to haue him at all times in your mindes is religious and requisite:* 1.76 but to make light of those meanes which hee hath pre∣scribed to nourish your fayth and continue the memorie of him-selfe, & to seeke out others of your owne fit to please your senses, not to resemble his greatnes or goodnes, this is neither acceptable vnto God, nor profitable for your selues.

Phi.

To remember Christ cannot bee euill.

Theo.

Not to remember him till you looke on a picture can not bee good. Your heartes ought alwayes to bee lifted vp vnto him, that * 1.77 whether you eate or drinke, wake or sleepe, or * 1.78whatsoeuer you doe in woorde or deede, (you may) doe all in the name of the Lord Iesu, * 1.79 giuing thankes alwayes for all thinges vnto God the father in the name of our Lorde Iesus Christ. You must not tary for the execution of this precept till you see an Image. But all your actions, woordes and thoughtes must bee directed to the prayse of his glory and honour of his name.

* 1.80This if you put in bre you shall neede no painted nor carued Image to bring you in mynde of his mercies. The benefites and blessings within you, with∣out you, and on euery side of you (which GOD for Christes sake bestoweth on you) are so many that you can hardly forget him: vnlesse you also forget the earth that beareth you, the heauen that couereth you, the day that guydeth your feete, the night that giueth you rest, the meates that you feede on, and the breath that you liue by: yea your owne bodies which hee woonderful∣ly made, and soules which hee preciously bought: All these thinges and all other thinges in heauen and earth you must drowne in vtter obliuion, be∣fore you can inferre that Images bee needefull to put vs in mynde of our dueties to GOD.* 1.81 And since without Images you can and must remem∣ber the Father that created, and the Holy Ghost that ••anctified you, why shoulde you forget the sonne that redeemed you more than the other, except you haue Images at your elbowes to kindle you appetites?

But this is nothing to the worshipping of Images, which you should proue to bee Catholike. Though there were an historicall vse in painting the shape of our Sauiour, yet is it no pietie to worshippe the picture. Graunt it might be vsed for remembrance, for religion it may not; and therefore you are all this while besides the marke.

Philand.

You denie both the hauing and woorshipping of Images to bee Catholique. Wee prooue the hauing of them to bee necessarie by the fruite and profite that commeth from them:* 1.82 namely the instruction of the ignorant in the storie of their saluation, the putting vs in often remem∣braunce of our Sauiour, and the stirring vp our deuotion with more fer∣uencie.

The worshipping of them wee proue with more facilitie: for if hee that ho∣noureth the Image honour the person himselfe thereby represented, as * 1.83 S. A∣thanasius, S. Basil, S. Chrysostome and S. Ambrose doe affirme: then the worship which is done to the Image of Christ, passeth vnto Christ himselfe: and by consequent if it bee lawfull to adore and honour Christ, it is not vn∣lawfull to doe the like to his Image. Besides wee can prooue that adora∣tion of Images is a tradition deliuered from the Apostles, and obserued in all Churches: and that the Scripture it selfe supporteth vs in this point, as the learned epistle of Adrian the Bishoppe of Rome to Constantine and Irene doeth largely shewe: and for the credite of the cause wee haue a general Coun∣cell eight hundreth yeres old to say as much in euery point as I affirme, and more.

Theo.

Wee maruell not to see you so deepely deceiued and strongly delu∣ded as you bee:* 1.84 such is the iust iudgement of God on all that admit not the loue of the trueth, but haue pleasure in vnrighteousnes. You rest on the vanities & forgeries of such as were enclined to the same error before you,* 1.85 not exami∣ning their proofes, nor considering their reportes; but presuming their eui∣dent follies to bee pregnant authorities for you, whith is euer the next way to seduce others, and to bee seduced your selues. As touching the shew which you make of Scriptures, Apostolike Tradition, Churches, Fathers & Coun∣cels, it is a childish and friuolous vaunt. The fathers which you quote, are a∣bused, the Apostles and their Churches belied, the Scriptures depra∣ued and wrested, the Councell, which you call generall, reiected as wic∣ked, and diligently refuted in the same age by the West Bishoppes. Of these emptie and vnluckie Maskes, the more you bring, the lesse you wynne.

Phi.

Wee loose nothing so long as you lode vs onely with words.

Theo.

If your proofes bee vaine, my woordes be true: Looke you therefore to the soundnesse of that which you alleage: otherwise your owne burden will ouer∣presse you.

Philand.

The collection which I made out of Saint Basill and others is very sure. Saint Basill sayth: Honos Imaginis in ipsum prototypum redit.

The honour doone to the Image redoundeth to the principall that is there∣by represented.* 1.86 S. Athanasius, Qui Imaginem adorat, in ipsa Imperatorem ado∣rat. He that reuerenceth the Image, honoureth therein the Emperour. And S. Chrysostome▪ Knowest thou not, that hee which hurteth the Emperours Image,* 1.87 defaceth the Imperiall dignitie it selfe? And so S. Ambrose, Hee that crowneth the Emperours Image, honoureth surely him, whose Image he honoured: and he that despiseth the Emperours Image, doeth the iniurie to the Emperour whose Image hee did spit at.

Theo.

Wee doubt not of this similitude.

Phi.

Then wee inferre: ergo hee that worshippeth the Image of Christ worshippeth Christ himselfe: and so the adoration of Christes Image is not Idolatrie, but pietie.

Theo.

You meane that Image of Christ which is made with hands.

Phi.

I doe.

Theo.

Then wee deny the consequent.

Phi.

Why so? Betweene the resemblances of Christ and others the proportion is good.* 1.88

Theo.

Yea, but betweene the seruices of God and men, and also betweene their Images, the distinction is great. Princes can expect no more but a sober reuerence due to their states, expressed by some decent gestures of the bodie, that others may behold it; and that to be yeelded chiefly to their persons, and secondly to their de∣puties, vicegerents and messengers, yea to their ensignes, armes and recogni∣sances, such as they shall vse or allow to represent their power or to notifie their pleasures. In which case they that honour the Princes throne, Scepter, Seale, swoord, token or Image, honour not the thinges which they see, but the power that sent them.

Thus farre your similitude is currant, marie from hence to adoring the car∣ued and painted images of Christ can you draw no consequent.

* 1.89First because Christ hath neither appointed nor allowed them to represent his person, as Princes haue.

Next for that our sauiour as the sonne of God must haue a diuine honour in spirit and trueth, fit for the creator whereof neither images nor any other crea∣tures are capabl••: and is so ielous of it that he wil part it with none, and name∣ly not with grauen or molten images,* 1.90

Thirdly the image of any Prince is then to bee honoured when the Person is absent: but in the presence of the Emperour him-selfe to turne to his image were * 1.91 apparant madnes as Lactantius teacheth. Synce then the Lorde Iesu is by his diuine maiestie present in all places at all tymes to receiue that honor and adoration of all men that is done vnto him: it is no pietie but frensie to ho∣nour his image when hee himselfe is not absent:* 1.92 and requireth as well the re∣ligious behauiour of the body as the inward motions of the mynd to be yeelded vnto him.

Lastly these fathers do not bring this similitude to prooue that wee shoulde worshippe the image of Christ made with handes, but that wee shoulde adore Christ him-selfe as being the expresse image of his father, proposed by God to haue one and the same honour with him, and in that respect the honour doone to

him passeth vnto God the father whose Image hee is, euen as the reuerence gi∣uen to the officers, armes or Images which Princes sende to set vp, vnto them selues, is accepted as rendred to their owne persons, when they can not other∣wise be present in the place to receiue it but by a Substitute, or a signe that shal represent their state.

Phi.

You may quarrell with any conclusion if you bee once mynded to bee froward.

Theo.

Call you that quarelling, when you can not be suffered by a similitude stretched whither you list your selues,* 1.93 to subuert the very ground∣worke of all religion and godlynes? for if this sequele bee sure, that the honour done to the painted or carued Image of Christ is transf••rred to Christ himselfe; then must you giue to the Image of Christ no baser, nor other honor than Christ is willing and worthie to receiue:* 1.94 and that is the highest and diuinest kinde of adoration that may be, which the Scriptures reserue only vnto God.

And what is this but to set your selues against heauen, and to crie defiance vnto God,* 1.95 by giuing his honour vnto others: yea to the vilest and ignoblest things of all others; and to serue most abicet creatures in equall degree of glo∣ry with the most mightie creator and quickner of all? If you giue them no reli∣gious nor diuine honour but a louing aspect or a reuerent behauiour, that single salutation or mannerly submission may not passe vnto Christ, lest you seeme to vse him as your good familiar and old acquaintance, or else as some earthly Po∣tentate rather than as the God of grace and second person in the blessed trinitie. Lesse than diuine honour Christ will not haue: hee that otherwise honoureth him, defaceth him, & that honour you can not empart to his Image without sa∣crilegious and damnable Idolatrie: your conclusion therefore is not only vaine but also wicked, if you referre it to the Image of Christ made with handes: and other acceptions of Christes Image can do you no good.

Phi.

S. Ambrose vttering the words which I last rehearsed, addeth far∣ther, Vides quod inter multas Christi Imagines ambulamus:* 1.96 Thou seest we walke among many Images of Christ: and therefore all sortes of Images which per∣taine vnto Christ must haue their conuenient honour.

Theo.

But S. Am∣brose the next woordes before vtterly excludeth your woodden Images as not within the limits of his speach, and reproueth the Gentiles for thinking a peece of wood could be an image vnto god: and then addeth as you say,* 1.97 that the church had many images of Christ: not, many kindes of Images, but many in num∣ber that Christ accepteth and reputeth for his Images; and those hee ma∣keth to bee the poore and afflicted in whom Christ is relieued or despised, as hee sheweth by the woordes of Christ speaking of them as of him-selfe in the twenty fiue of Saint Matthewes Gospel. And this rather hurteth than helpeth your conclusion. For if the honour which is due to Christ may not bee giuen to men who are the liuing Images of Christ made by the woorkemanshippe of GOD him-selfe,* 1.98 much lesse may the same bee deriued to wood or stone fa∣shioned by mans hande, and in no point answerable to the true proportion of Christ, but in this onely that they bee shaped like men. For which cause they

resemble the sonne of God no more than they doe any other of the iust or vniust that did or doe liue, and cannot truely bee called the Images of Christ, but on∣ly by the Painters purpose,* 1.99 and the peoples error, which haue no power to ap∣point what Image shall stand for Christ, much lesse to prescribe what honour he shall bee content to excommunicate to that Image, which they list to erect vn∣to him. These bee sufficient causes to stop your conclusion, if your antecedent were generall as it is not, and similitudes you may not wrest farther than they, that made them, did intend them.

Phi.

* 1.100You said somewhat if the worshipping of Images were not deliuered vs by Tradition from the Apostles.

Theo.

Were the Apostles makers or woorshippers of Images?

Philand.

Neuer read you that?

Theoph.

Yeas I haue read it often, but I was neuer so wise as to beleeue it.

Phi.

Then I perceiue you would hardly beleeue that Christ him-selfe made the first likenes of his owne face, and sent to king Abagarus, as Damascene and Nicephorus witnesse.* 1.101

Theoph.

You may well sweare, I will neither beleeue you, nor Damascene, Damascene sayth, Fertur quaedam historia: there is such a storie spread abroad,* 1.102 but hee neither telleth by whom it was made, nor of what cre∣dite it is, and Eusebius that first tooke this storie of Abagarus, and that at large out of the monuments of the Citie Edessa, reporteth no such thing: yea the Church of Rome her selfe some hundreths before Damascene,* 1.103 repelled that * 1.104Epistle of Christ to Abagarus then extant by name as Apocryphall. And ther∣fore you bolster an error, and abuse the people of God with forgeries long be∣fore condemned, though since receiued by Nicephorus and other fablers a∣mong the Grecians, who wrate all they found without iudgement, or with∣out all shame fayned that they neuer found, except it were in some wicked and witlesse legend,* 1.105 such as your Church of late dayes had good stoare.

Philand.

And so the image of our Ladie made by Saint Luke, you will say is a fable; and yet Simeon Methaphrastes doeth confirme it.

Theoph.

Leaue these late and obscure Lyars, and bring some-what woorth the answe∣ring.

Philand.

Saint Basil sayth the painting and adoring of Images is a tra∣dition of the Apostles: and so doetha 1.106 Damascene. The woordes of S. Basil are, Quam ob causam & historias Imaginum illorum honoro & palam adoro. Hoc enim nobis traditum a sanctis Apostolis non est prohibendum, sed in omnibus eccle••ijs nostris eorum historias erigimus. For which cause I honour and * 1.107 openly a∣dore the stories of their Images. And this being * 1.108 deliuered vs from the Apostles is not prohibited, but in * 1.109 all our Churches wee erect their hi∣stories.

Theoph.

Can you turne vs to the place in Saintb 1.110 Basill?

Phi.

The epistle is not extant, but Adrian the Bishoppe of Rome, whose credite is sufficient for a greater matter than this, doeth alleage i•• ••ut of his writings against Iulian the Apostata.

Theo.

Adrian and you b••th shall pardon vs for beleeuing you,

when wee find no such woordes in all S. Basill.

Phi.

They might be then in Saint Basil, though they be not now.

Theo.

If the woordes did agree with the spirit of Saint Basil, or with the s••a••e of those tymes, or with the rest of the fathers and auncient teachers in Christes Church, wee woulde not so much dislike them, though they were not found in Saint Basils woorkes: but nowe seeing the woordes to be sensibly false, if not vtterly wicked, and to haue no conuenience with the doctrine of those that taught in the same time or neere a∣bout his age: and knowing in the contention of the Grecians for images some∣what before Adrian,* 1.111 what framing and ••••ling of fathers there was to beare out either side: wee thinke it easier for the Bishoppe of Rome to bee deceiued in a Greeke writer, that liued 450. yeeres before him, by some false reporter, lewd translator, or cunning forge••er, than for Basil to bee so great a straunger in the Church of Christ and so manifest a despiser of Gods precepts, that hee would openly defend, and himselfe vse, adoration of Saintes Images without any scruple; as deliuered from the Apostles; who were farre from hauing, & far∣ther from teaching the godly to worship the Images of Prophetes, Apostles or Martyrs, as this deluder dreameth. And therefore either shewe vs the Epistle where this is written, or else leaue loding the learned fathers names with such vnlearned corruptions.

Philand.

Were there not many thinges written by the Catholique Fa∣thers that nowe are perished?

Theoph.

And as many thinges forged in their names that were neuer written by them, as appeareth in all their woorkes to this day by the iudgement of your very friendes.* 1.112

Phil.

This is the next way to call all their writinges, and so the whole Christian sayth in question.

Theoph.

You woulde faine haue vs swallowe your monkish im∣pieties vnder the colour of their authorities: but the wisedome of God hath better prouided for his church than so. The rule of our fayth is the voyce of our Shepheard. By that we iudge of the writings of all others be they f••ith••••ll or Infidels. If this were written in Basil, wee would not receiue it vntill wee had tried it by that touchstone: finding no such thing in all his woorkes, why should wee regard it?

Philand.

There it was, though nowe it bee not.

Theophi.

There it is not, wheresoeuer it was; and your alleager hath no su••h credite with vs that wee should trust him.

Philand.

Trust no man I praie you, that is against you.

Theo.

Wee trust not you to be your owne caruers.

Phi.

This authoritie was alleaged and allowed to be S. Basils in a general Coun∣cell 800. yeres agoe.

Theo.

That Councell was neuer receiued nor confessed to be general by the west Churches, but reiected and condemned as a wicked coniuration against the faith: and the* 1.113 letter there framed in Adrians name, besides that it sauoreth altogether of your late forge at Rome, is a pestilent and shamelesse depriuation both of fathers and Scriptures.

Phi.

You bee very choice that can like nothing, except it be exquisite.

The.

You be worse than grosse, if you take such palpable lies to be the fortresses of your faith. Omit

that fond and false report of Constantines * 1.114 leprosie purposing to bee washed in a bath of infants * 1.115 blood, and dehorted from it in the night as hee slept by some that appeared to him, whome hee afterwarde * 1.116 knewe to bee Peter and Paul by their * 1.117 Images which Siluester Bishoppe of Rome shewed him: and that thereupon Constantine being first a * 1.118 persecuter of the Christians, was con∣uerted, and * 1.119 baptized by Syluester, and beganne to buylde Churches and * 1.120 decked them with Images in euery place; (lewder and viler fables than which your legend hath none:) the rest of Adrians allegations out of the scrip∣tures and Fathers, what are they but open iniuries and mockeries of GOD and man?

* 1.121The Scriptures which hee bringeth to proue the making and adoring of I∣mages bee these: God made man of the slime of the earth after his owne I∣mage. Adam of his owne free will * 1.122 called all the beastes of the fielde and foules of the ayre by their proper names. * 1.123 Abel of his owne accord presen∣ted a sacrifice vnto God of the firstlings of his flocke.* 1.124 Noe after the flood of his owne head buylt an altar vnto the Lorde and offered thereon. So Abra∣ham of himselfe erected an altar in the honour and glorie of God. * 1.125 Iacob al∣so,* 1.126 when hee had in his sleepe seene the Angels of GOD ascending & des∣cending by the ladder, after hee rose of his owne motion set vp a stone on the ground, where his head lay, and powred oyle on it, and named the place Bethel, and wee doe not reade that God for this cause was angrie with him. Againe the same Iacob worshipped in the toppe of his staffe. Not that hee woorshipped the staffe, but him that helde it in a signe of loue.

* 1.127Then alleaging the brasen Serpent, and the Cherubins made by Moses & Salomon, hee descendeth to other testimon••es of Esay and Dauid, as sitte for his purpose as salt for sore eyes. Esai sayth, a 1.128 In those dayes there shal be an al∣tar vnto the Lorde in the mydst of the Lande of Egypt, and a pillour tou∣ching the ends therof, and it shall be for a signe and a testimonie to the Lord in the land of Egypt. And Dauid the tuner of Psalmes sayth b 1.129 confession and beautie before him. And againe:c 1.130 Lord, I haue loued the comlynes of thine house. And againe: d 1.131 Thy face Lord wil I seeke. And againe: e 1.132 the rich among the people shall bowe themselues before thy face. And againe: f 1.133the light of thy countenance is signed vpon vs.

These bee the best proofes which Adrian or hee that framed this letter in Adrians name could finde in all the Scriptures for the making and adoring of images,* 1.134 and these you see bee very miserable. For what fellowship hath Adams act, Abels sacrifice, Noahs or Abrahams altar, Iacobs stone and staffe, Esaies title or pillour with images: or when Dauid spake of the face and countenance of God, did he so much as dreame of the grauen and woodden figures, which you would erect vnto God against his heauenly will and trueth?

Phi.

In deed these places be not altogether so pertinent as we could wish thē: but the brasen serpent & the two Cherubins which Moses set vp, directly make

for Images.* 1.135

Theo.

They doe not warrant your erecting of Images: and your adoring of Images they vtterly ouerthrow. For the Brasen serpent was a figure of Christ, as we find confirmed by his owne wordes in the * 1.136 gos∣pell of S. Iohn: and yet though God * 1.137 commaunded Moses to make it, and healed the dreadfull plague of the people by it, and the Iewes had kept it aboue 700. yeres as a monument of Gods mercie toward them in the desert, when they beganne but * 1.138 to burne incense to it, Ezechiah the religious King of Iudah brake it in peeces and is commanded by the holie Ghost, namely for that act.

This example wee would haue you aduisedly to marke.* 1.139 A figure of Christ erected by Gods owne commaundement, and seruing to put al Israels posteritie in minde of the wonders which their fathers saw in the wildernesse, when it was abused was defaced, and the fact allowed by Gods owne mouth. Hence we conclude; that the painted and carued Images of Christ himselfe may not be adored, and if they be, they may be remoued, though they were deli∣uered euen by the Apostles, as yours were not.

The Cherubines were made by Gods appointment, but not set in any place for the people to adore them, or so much as to see them: nay the Priests them∣selues were kept from the sight of them; * 1.140 only the high-Priest, once euery yere, went into the second Tabernacle where they stoode, the vaile being closely drawen betweene that and the first Tabernacle, where the rest of the Priests serued. And since Gods care was so great that they should not be seene; wee inferre, his will was as cleare that they should not be worshipped, for so much as they could not be worshipped vnlesse they were seene.

Phi.

Yet this sheweth that God would haue them made.* 1.141

Theo.

But not seen, much lesse worshipped. And as for the making of them, Gods act aboue his Law is no warrant for you to breake his Law. By his Law he re∣straineth you, not himselfe from the making of any such similitudes. And therefore though he might for causes to him knowen goe against his Law, you may not. This rule Tertullian will teach you. It is no hurt that the same God by his Law forbade a similitude to be made, and by an extraordinary precept commaunded the similitude of the brasen serpent to be made. If thou wilt obay God thou hast his law, make thee no similitude. If thou looke to the precept that was giuen after for making a similitude, then see thou imitate Moses. Make no Image against the law, vnlesse God bid thee (as he did Moses.)

Phi.

The fathers who knew the Scriptures as well as you, were of an other minde, as you may see by Adrians letters,* 1.142 auouching many and good authorities out of them.

Theo.

Adrian dealeth with the fathers as hee did with the Scriptures. Eight of them he alleageth and abuseth euerie one of them. Augustine saith, * 1.143The Image of God what is it but the face of God in which the people of God are signed? And Ambrose; * 1.144 when we worship in Christ the diuine Image and Crosse, do we part him in sunder? The diuine

Image and countenance, which these fathers speake of, is the brightnes of Christes diuine nature and glorie: his crosse is his death and humilitie: those Adrian grossely supposeth to be such as grauers & caruers doe make with their hands. And where Cyril saith, Faith painteth (or liuely describeth vnto vs) the worde which was in the forme of God:* 1.145 that euidence & clearenes of the Gospell setting the sonne of God in his diuine maiestie before our eyes, your holy father lewdly misconstereth for painting with pencils and coulours. Athanasius, Chrysostome and Basil, drawing similitudes from the painters art, and Emperours Image, to other purposes, are violently wrested to make for that they neuer ment nor thought. Gregory Nissene confesseth he had often seen the storie of the passion pictured, but he neither saith in Churches, nor alloweth it any worshippe.

Hierom is brought in last and made to say that which not only no learned father euer vttered,* 1.146 but no sober nor Christian man euer imagined. As (God) gaue leaue to the Gentils to worshippe things made with hands, and to the Iewes (to worshippe) the carued workes and two golden cherubins which Moses made, so hath hee giuen to vs Christians the Crosse, and to paint and reuerence the Images of good workes, and so to get him to like of our labour. The two first pointes, that God gaue leaue to the Gentils to worshippe things made with hands, and licenced the Iewes to adore the woorkes and shapes of Cherubins which Moses made, are so directly against the trueth of the Scriptures, and rule of our faith, that nothing can be more: the last may well bee written by him that wrate the first, and as soone true as the rest.* 1.147 And were it found in Hieroms workes, as it is not, it would but argue that other mens hands had beene in Hieroms bookes as well as his: which is no newes in the most of the Fathers Greeke and Latine that you haue left vs at this day: But of that paines Adrian himselfe hath eased vs by al∣leaging that which is not in all S. Hieromes volumes.

* 1.148Amidst the route of these follies and forgeries, commeth in that Bastard place of Basil, no where found in all his writings; which, besides the apparant slander there fastned on the Apostles and Churches of Christ against al trueth, the legates of Adrian in this very Synode conuince of a manifest and mightie corruption in the wordes that be most materiall for your purpose.

Phi.

Did the legates of Adrian contradict their masters allegation?

Theo.

The same place being rehearsed by Demetrius a Notarie out of the booke it selfe, which the legates of Rome offered in the councel, sounded farre otherwise than Adri∣an had cited it. For where Adrian in his letters alleaged, Hoc enim traditum nobis ab Apostolis non est prohibendum: This being deliuered vs by the Apostles must not be prohibited: the booke which they read, had Hoc enim nobis a sanctis Apostolis non est prohibitum: this is not forbidden vs by the Apostles. It is one thing to say The Apostles did deliuer it, & an other to say The Apostles did not prohibite it. Betweene these two reports, if you weigh them w••ll, you shall finde good difference.

Phi.

If you like not the former reading,* 1.149 take the latter, and that in sight is true. For the Apostles in particular woordes did not prohibite the making and worshipping of holy Images.

Theo.

They needed not. God by his Lawe long before had doone it very sufficiently: and that standing in full force, there needed no newe prohibition, since no authoritie coulde bee grea∣ter than his, who had already forbidden it. And yet by your leaue the Apo∣stles did not onely propose the whole Lawe of God, as * 1.150 holy, iust, and good, but they namely touch the seconde precept, which wee reason of; Saint Paul confessing the Iewes did well according to the Lawe * 1.151 to abhorre Idoles, and that the Gentiles * 1.152 were giuen ouer to their vile affections for turning the glorie of God to the Image of a man; and S. Iohn requiring all christi∣ans to beware the like,* 1.153 in say••ng, Babes, keepe your selues from Idoles.

Phi.

Frō idoles: but not from images.

Theo.

An Image made with hands if it be set vp to God himselfe, & worshipped, is an idole, as I haue proued; & therfore you must either renoūce your adoring of images, which your forged Basil would establish, or else suffer thē to stand for Idoles, from which S. Iohn deterreth vs.

Phi.

S. Augustine saith it is not an Idole except it b•• Dei falsi & alieni simu∣lachrum,* 1.154 the image of a false & strange God. And in that respect you do the I∣mages of Christ & his Saints great wrong, to call them idoles.

Theo.

S. Au∣gustine in that place disputeth how Gedeons Ephod should be said in the scrip∣ture to be fornication in the people, & the destruction of Gedeons house since it was (as he thought,) no likenes of any thing against the lawe, but an imitation of the Priests apparell prescribed in the Law.* 1.155 And albeit to interprete himself, what he ment, when he said it was no idole, he addeth by way of explicatiō, (that is no shape of any false or strange God) yet doth he not limit the word to that continual vse: but rather granteth, as his conclusiō sheweth, that there were mo kindes of Idoles, & that this, though it were a garment in the law, & not an I∣mage against the law, yet was it in sort an Idole, & so his words import: Factū est Gedeon & domini eius in scandolum, quia & hoc quoddā genus Idoli quodāmodo e∣rat. This was the ruine of Gedeon & his house, because it was in some sense a kind of idole.

Tertullian wil tel you the word is general,* 1.156 & noteth the likenes or shape of any thing. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 graecè, formam sonat, ab ••oper diminutionem 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, aequé apud nos formu∣lam fecit: Igitur omnis forma vel formula Idolum se dici exposcit, This word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in greeke signifieth a shape, whence 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is deriued as a diminutiue, and with vs signifieth any likenes: therefore euery shape or likenes may wel bee cal∣led an Idole. Isidor repeating Tertullians words as worth the noting, addeth of his owne;* 1.157 Idolum est simulachrum quod humana effigie factum & consecratum est. An Idole is an Image made after the shape of a man and dedicated (vnto some religious vse.)

Philand.

Nay dedicated vnto some false God, and then it is rightly an Idole.

Theoph.

But Isidore sayth generally that an image consecrated is an idole: and consecration is the addicting of any thing to holy and diuine vses.

Phi.

That is not Isidores meaning.

Theo.

Those be Isidores words.

Phi.

You heard S. Augustine say, it must bee the Image of a false GOD.

Theo.

S. Augustine doth not tie the word to that signification as you heard by his owne confession:* 1.158 and yet if you take false and straunge Gods, as S. Augu∣stine doeth, your adoration of painted and carued Images will prooue them to bee false Christes, and your selues to bee worshippers of false Goddes. For if you worshippe Christ not after his will, but after your conceite, you woor∣shippe nowe not Christ, but the fiction and imagination of your own heartes; and that is a false Christ as Saint Augustine learnedly and truely teacheth.* 1.159 Quisquis talem cogitat Deum, qualis non est Deus, alienum Deum vtique & fal∣sum in cogitatione portat. Whosoeuer supposeth God to bee that hee is not, beareth a straunge and false GOD in his cogitation. This else-where hee calleth the Idole of the heart,* 1.160 not onely in Pagans but also in Christi∣ans. Of the false fansies that Pagans, had of GOD hee sayth: * 1.161 Prius id agimus vt Idola in eorum cordibus confringamus. The first thing that wee la∣bour is to breake downe those Idoles in their heartes. Of the wrong ima∣ginations of christians hee saith, * 1.162 Quae omnia Idola cordis sunt: all which are Idoles of the heart.

Phi.

A false opinion of his essence is an Idole in the heart of man.

Theo.

And so is a wrong perswasion of his will or woorship.* 1.163 Hierom sayth, Vsque ho∣die in domo Dei, quae interpretatur ecclesia, siue in corde animaque credentium poni∣tur Idolum, quando nouum dogma constituitur. Euen to this present day, an Idole is set vp in the house of God,* 1.164 which is interpreted to be the Church, or else in the hearts and soules of the beleeuers when a newe point of Doctrine is deuised. And therefore generally resolueth of all errors, Quod omne dogma con∣trarium veritati adoret opera manuum suarum, & constituat Idola in terra sua: that euery opinion repugnant to truth worshippeth the works of his own hands, and erecteth an Idole in the land where it is.

By the workes of their owne hands hee meaneth the deuises of their hearts, as else where he sheweth.* 1.165 Haeretici perdito mentis iudicio adorant Idola quae de cor∣de suo finxerunt. Heretikes with their wicked resolution of mynd, (or else void of sense and feeling of mynde) adore the Idoles which they haue framed in their owne heartes. S. Augustine citeth and commendeth the saying of So∣crates. * 1.166Vnumquemque Deum sic coli oportere, quomodo ipse se colendum esse prae∣ceperit. Euery God must bee worshipped in such sort as hee hath commaun∣ded himselfe to bee worshipped. And thereupon inferreth, that if any would worshippe (the God of the Hebrewes) otherwise than he him-selfe had wil∣led, non vtique illum colerent, sed quod ipsi finxissent, they shoulde not haue wor∣shipped him, but their owne fiction.

In this consisteth the chiefest ground of all religion. For God hath not char∣ged vs to bee curious in searching his essence, but to be carefull in obseruing his will. Hee neither taketh nor requireth any thing at our handes besides his woorship. That if wee yeelde him according to his will, we honour him as our

God: if we alter that which he hath appointed for himselfe, or adde any thing vn∣to it, hee reiecteth all our seruice as done not vnto him but to the conceit of our harts: which by nature is no God, & therefore an idole. For this cause God is e∣uery where so earnest with vs that we should serue him not after our fansies, nor with our deuises, but answerable to his will reueiled in his word. You shal not do, euery man what seemeth him good in his owne eies: whatsoeuer I com∣maund you,* 1.167 that take heed you do that (and nothing else). Thou shalt put no∣thing thereto, nor take ought there from. And when the Iewes thought to be very forward in deseruing God with their deuotions and oblations, they were repelled with this demaund, * 1.168who requireth this of your handes? Our Saui∣our himselfe assureth you that * 1.169you worship God in vaine, if your feare (or ser∣uice) towards him be taught (you) * 1.170 by the precept of men.

Phi.

All this we admit.

Theo.

Then when we serue God besides his will, we serue not him, but the presumption of our owne hearts which is an idoll: & this deuotion of ours, though we wholy intend it to him and earnestly vrge it on him, yet is it the worship of idols, and not of God, since hee vtterly renounceth it as none of his, and being refused by him as iniurious to his truth, though it be ap∣pointed for him as most ••••t in our fansies, it must of necessitie be counted ido∣latrie.

Phi.

What is this to the image of Christ, whereof we were reasoning?

The.

Unlesse you can proue that Christ will be serued with materiall and artificiall images, and is content to accept that honor as done to himselfe, which is yeelded vnto them, your adoring them maketh them idols and your selues Idolaters. For they be thinges made with handes, which you cannot worship without ap∣parent idolatrie.

Phi.

We worship not them, but him that is represented by them.

Theo.

It lyeth not in your power to diuide adoration betwixt Christ and his image,* 1.171 or with your inten••ion to assigne that honour vnto him, which you do to the workes of your own handes without his warrant. You must know whether hee will ac∣cept it as done to himselfe, before you may venter to conuey it vnto him by dead and dumbe creatures.

Phi.

We doubt not of that.

Theo.

Your confidence wil not helpe the matter till his commaundement be shewed.

Phi.

All men,* 1.172 you knowe, thinke that done to themselues, which is done to their image.

Theo.

But Christ, that is God as well as man, is not so content.

Phi.

How proue you that?

Theo.

Nay the proofe must be yours, since the fact is yours. You must shew that Christ alloweth of the honour done to a painted or carued image as done to himselfe. If you cannot, you conuince your selues of sa∣crilege, presumption and impietie when you giue that honour which is due to Christ, vnto a stocke or a stone set vp in his steed without his leaue or liking. For this precept, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serue, excludeth as well images as creatures from being partakers of his diuine honor: & the image which you make, be not so good as the creatures which God made: which yet in no wise may be worshipped.

Phi.

You reason as * 1.173 if wee gaue diuine honour vnto images, which wee doe not.

Theo.

Your schooles with one consent do giue the same honour vnto the i∣mage which is due to the originall: that is diuine honour to the image of Christ. If you be ashamed of that errour, you ridde your selues of some danger, but you leaue your church in the briars; which hath all this while professed and practi∣sed that idolatrous doctrine.

Phi.

Our church neuer gaue images any diuine honour.

Theo.

The fortresse of your faith is direct against you: * 1.174 Crux Christi & eius imago venerari debent a∣doratione latriae. Et haec est opinio Thomae in 3. sententiarum distinctione 2. The crosse and image of Christ ought to wo••shipped with such honor as is due vnto God. And of this opinion is Thomas vpon the thirde of the sentences, the seconde distinction.

Phi.

Holcot was not of that minde as you find it te∣stified in the same place.

Theo.

But Holcots reward was to be repelled with his contradiction, because your church tooke part with Thomas. And so your fortresse sayth, * 1.175 Licet hoc rationabiliter videatur dictum, tamen loquendum est, vt plures & communis opinio tenet oppositum. Though this saying (of Holcot) seeme reasonable, yet we must goe with the multitude: and the common opinion holdeth the contrary. One of your Italian Bishoppes, who knewe better than you what the church of Rome holdeth, saith: Ergo fatendum est fi∣deles in Ecclesia adorare imaginem sine quo volueris scrupulo: qum & eo illam vene∣rari cultu quo & prototypon eius. Propter quod, si illum habet adorari latria, & illa habet adorari latria. Wee must therefore confesse, that the faithfull in the church do without any qualification ADORE THE IMAGE (which they see) yea with the same kinde of worship that is due to the original. Where∣fore if that haue diuine honour, the image MVST HAVE THE LIKE DI∣VINE HONOR.

Phi.

Wee giue not this honour to the image, but rather to the originall.

Theo.

* 1.176Your church in plaine wordes giueth the same honour to the image that is due to the originall, which in Christ must bee diuine honour: and when you bee charged with it, you say you giue it not to the image, but rather to the Originall: and so by your later euasion you subuert your former assertion. For why dare you not giue diuine honour to the image of Christ, but onely because it were manifest and apparent idolatrie so to doe? And if that bee true, why then doe you teach all men to giue the same honour to the image of Christ that is due to Christ him selfe? You conclude it must bee done: and yet you confesse it can not bee doone without a sacrilegious iniurie to Christ, if his diuine honour bee giuen to an image made of earth and framed by Art.

Phi.

* 1.177You vnderstand vs not. When wee giue diuine honour to the image in respect of Christ, we giue it to Christ and not to the image.

Theo.

God graunt you vnderstand your selues. You first dishonour the Sonne of God, by exhibiting the heauenly seruice, that is due to him, to an Image made with handes: and then with a shift of wordes you thinke to delude him in tel∣ling

that hee may not choose but like of your doinges, because you ment it vnto him, when you did it to a dumbe creature for his sake. But awake out of your frensie, God will not thus be mocked by your relations or intentions. Hee is zealous of his honour, he will not resigne it to any other, and namely not to grauen (or carued) images.* 1.178 If against his worde, against his will, a∣gainst his truth and glorie, you impart it to anie other, or take vpon you to conueie it to him by creatures or images, as if hee were not present in all places with might and maiesty to receiue the seruice that is done vnto him; you not onely make new Gods, but you reiect him as no GOD, who alone is the true GOD, and will be serued without mate or meane of your de∣uising.

Phi.

Our Lord shewing what account he maketh of such as represent his per∣son, sayth:* 1.179 In as much as you haue doone it to one of the least of these, you haue doone it vnto me.

Theo.

Did Christ speake that of images?

Phi.

No•• but thereby you see, it passeth ••••to Christ, whatsoeuer is done in his name or for his sake to others.

Theo.

If you meane such charitable reliefe as Christ hath commaunded vs to yeeld to our brethren, in respect of his will, their neede, and our dutie: you say well: wee haue for that the manifest precept and pro∣mise of our Sauiour accepting it as done to himselfe whatsoeuer is done to a∣ny of his brethren or seruauntes: but if you leape from men to images, & from humane comfort to diuine honour, you leape too farre to haue the sequele good.

Philand.

If diuine adoration may not bee giuen to Images, yet hu∣mane reuerence may with-out anie daunger.* 1.180

Theo.

Religious honour may not: and as for externall and ciuill reuerence, whether that may bee giuen to images, can bee no doubt of Doctrine, nor point of fayth. The one is impious to bee defended, the other superfluous to bee discus∣sed.

Philand.

So you giue them either wee care not.

Theophil.

If you flie from adoration to saluation, and stande not on pietie but on ciui∣litie: then is it a question for Philosophers and not for Diuines, and to bee decided rather in the Schooles than in the Churche: neyther can any manne bee praysed or preiudiced for vsing or omitting that kinde of cur∣tesie, which neyther the Gospell nor good manners conuince to bee ne∣cessary.

Philand.

Shoulde wee not * 1.181 honour Christ and his Sainctes by all the meanes wee can?

Theophil.

Christ you must honour with all power, and all your strength, as being the Sonne of the liuing GOD: but you may not fasten his honour to any Image or creature, since hee is alwayes present to beholde, and willing to receiue as well the religions submis∣sion of knees, handes and eyes, as the inwarde sighes and grones of the heart, neither can you bestowe the least of these gestures on an image in your prayers without open and euident wrong to him to whome you shoulde yeeld them.

Phi.

For adoring of images I am not so earnest, as for hauing them in the Church, that they may put vs in remembraunce of the bitter paines and death, which it peased our Lord to suffer for our sakes: and that I am sure is catho∣like, though adoration be not.

Theo.

We doe not gainesay, the remembring or honouring the death and bloodshedding of our Sauiour: hee is not onely dull but wicked that intermitteth either: but this is the doubt betwixt vs, whether wee shoulde content our selues with such meanes as hee hath deuised for vs and commended vnto vs;* 1.182 thereby dayly to renue the memorie of our redemption, or else inuent others of our owne heades fitte perhappes to prouoke vs to a na∣turall and humane affection, but not fitte to instruct our fayth. The hearing of his worde and partaking of his mysteries were appointed by him to leade vs and vse vs to the continuall meditation of his death and passion, a crucifixe was not: hee knowing that images, though they did intertaine the eies with some delight, yet might they snare the soules of many simple and sillie persons: and preferring the least seede of sounde faith beholding and adoring him in spirit and truth, before all the dumbe shewes and imagery that mans wit could furnish to winne the eye and moue the heart with a carr••all kind of commiseration and pitie, such as wee finde in our selues, when wee beholde the tormentes and pangues of any miscreant or malefactour punished amon∣gest vs.

Phi.

All * 1.183 meanes are good that bring vs in minde of his death.

Theo.

By sight you may learn the maner of his death, but neither the cause, nor the fruits, which are the chiefest thinges that the sonne of god would haue vs remember in his death: and you very peruersely and wickedly keeping the people from those meanes which Christ ordained, as the hearing of the word, and right vse of the sacraments (which you drowned in a strange tongue that the people vnderstood not) set them to gaze on a Roode & taught them to giue all possible honour both bodily and ghostly to that which they sawe with their eyes, bearing them in hand it passed from the image, to the originall: that is from a dead and sense∣lesse stocke to the glorious and euerlyuing Sonne of God: which in effect was nothing else but to worship and serue the creature,* 1.184 before the Creator which is blessed for euer.

Phi.

You are now besides the matter. We speake of hauing images for remē∣braunce, not of adoring them for religion: and that is catholike, if this be not.

Theo.

Since the hauing of images being neither deliuered nor allowed by Christ nor his Apostles,* 1.185 is superfluous, and the abusing of them is so daunge∣rous and yet so frequent and often that in all ages and places it hath intrap∣ped many Gentiles, Iewes and Christians, I see no reason why for a curious delight of the eyes, which the Apostles neglected and the primatiue Church of Christ wanted, we shoulde scandalize the ignorant and exercise the learned, as for a necessarie point of catholike doctrine.

Phi.

Had the Apostles and their scholers no images?

Theo.

Had they thinke you?

Phi.

Remember you not the image which Nicodemus that came to Christ

by night, made with his owne handes and left to Gamaliel S. Pauls master: & he to Iames, and Iames to Simeon and Zacheus. This report you shall finde written by * 1.186 Athanasius 1300. yeares since: and besides that it is amongest his workes at this day, it was repeated 800. yeares agoe in the * 1.187 second Nicene councell as Athanasius writing.

Theo.

By this let the world iudge both of your cause and cunning. A thing bone by the confession of your owne stories aboue 760. yeares after Christ,* 1.188 vnder Constantine the 5. not long before the seconde Nicene councell, is coloured with Athanasius name, as written by him, that was deade 400. yeares before the matter happened,* 1.189 and not onely published with his writinges, but inserted into the second Nicene councell as his worke, whereas the Bishops then assembled were all aliue when this outrage was at∣tempted by the Iewes not 24. yeares before the calling of that Synode.* 1.190 Such fables and forgeries doe well become the quarell you haue in hand, but they wil neuer proue your hauing of images to be catholike or Apostolike.

Phi.

* 1.191 In deede our stories doe mention such an accident at the time which you name: but if it be true, though it be not so old as Athanasius, we care not.

Theo.

He that wil forge must not stick to ly: lying is the very ground of forging: and of a lyar we looke for no truth. And yet this tale of Nicodemus, Gama∣liel, Iames, Simeon and Zacheus, deliuering an image from hand to hand, is not the ass••rtiō of the author, but the rude report of a poore ignorant man fathe∣ring his image on them that neuer were christians, as Gamaliel was not, and that 700. yeares after their deathes without any proofe saue onely by hearesay. By such legends you may soone proue what you will: but he that hath any spark of christian courage or wisedom, will vtterly abhor these lies as feeling the gros∣nesse of them with his fingers.

Phi.

Since you so much dislike our proofes that the Apostles and the Prima∣tiue church had images,* 1.192 can you proue they had none?

Theo.

Doth your dis∣cretion serue you to put vs to proue the negatiue?

Ph.

You affirm they had none: our demaund is how you know that.

Theo.

You can not proue they had: and that is cause sufficient for vs to auouch they had not.

Phi.

Is that all you can say?

Theo.

If it were, you can not voide it: but we haue euident proofes that the church of Christ succeeding the Apostles had none, and thence we conclude the Apostles deliuered none: otherwise the church would not so soone haue reie∣cted the tradition of the Apostles.

Phi.

You may be sure they would not.

Theo.

And since they did reiect I∣mages,* 1.193 ergo it was no Apostolike tradition.

Phil.

Howe proue you they did re∣iect them?

Theo.

The christians were charged by the Pagans for hauing no images, and they not onely confessed so much, but also defended it, as most a∣greeable with the law of God. In Arnobius the heathen say of the christians, Cur nullas aras habent, nulla tenepla, nulla nota simulachra? why haue they no altars, no temples, no (open or) knowen images? In Origen Celsus sayth, Hij non patiuntur vel templa, vel aras, vel sim••lachra & statuas intueri. The christians can not abide to beholde temples, or altars, or images.

* 1.194In making their answere the Christians agnised they had none, and allead∣ged the law of God to proue they should haue none. Clemēs sayth, Nobis non est imago sensilis de materia sensili, sed quae percipitur intelligentia. We haue no image that is materiall and seene with eyes, but (onely) such as is conceiued with vnderstanding. And addeth this reason, * 1.195 We are plainely forbidden to vse that deceitfull art (of making images.) Thou shalt not make, saith the Pro∣phet, the likenesse of any thing. The * 1.196 Christians and Iewes, saith Origen, when they heare (the lawe of God) thou shalt not make to thy sel••e a∣ny grauen image nor the likenesse of any thing: neither shalt thou bowe downe to them nor serue them, not only refuse these tēples, Altars & images of God, but if neede be, choose rather to dy. And extending this as well to the image of the true God, as of those that were no gods, he sayth, * 1.197 Nec simula∣chra quidem nos veneramur, quippe qui Dei vt inuisibilis ita & incorporei formam nullam effigiamus. We reuerence not images, as making no figure to God who is inuisible and without all bodily shape.* 1.198 So Arnobius, What image shall I make to God, whose image, if you rightfully iudge, man himselfe is? And Lactantius as you hearde before affirmed There coulde bee no religion, wheresoeuer there was an image.

Phi.

These spake not of the christian images, but of the Pagans: such as in deede we may neither worship, nor haue.

Theo.

They speake namely of them∣selues which were christians: confessing they neither had nor might haue any image of God.

Phi.

Not of the Godhead, but of Christ & his Saincts they might notwithstanding these words; & it is euident by Eusebius they had. For the wo∣man that was cured by Christ of the bloody issue, erected an * 1.199 image of brasse vnto him in Cesaria where she dwelt, vnder the feete of which image grewe a strange herbe healing all diseases as soone as it touched the brasen skirt of his garmēt. This image remained togither with the herbe to the time of Eusebius, & after till Iulian the Apostata in spite of Christ brake it in peeces & set vppe his own image in place thereof, which God strake with fire from heauen in reuenge of his sonne so dishonored by Iulian, & threw the head of Iulians image from the body, & pitching it with the face downward into the earth, & blasting the rest w^t lightning for a terror to all that euer after should offer the image of his Sonne any reproach or misuse:* 1.200 as you may read in Sozomene. And this example is a faire warning for you that haue beheaded & burned so many images of Christ & his Sainctes within this Realme.

Theo.

This image the woman that was healed, erected in the citie where she dwelt as a monument of the mighty power which our Sauiour had shewed on her: she being then an heathen & not instructed in religion, & thinking thereby to prouoke others to harken after him & seek for his help as she had done. And when many trusted not her words, it pleased God, not only to ratify her report as true, but to shewe the Gentiles by the wonderfull euent of the herbe there growing what vertue was in his sonne to cure all their griefs thereby to lead them the rather to beleeue in him, that they might be saued by him. In this wee dispraise

not the womans purpose minding to celebrate the benefit which shee receiued at our Sauiours handes, the best way that she then knew: & we honor the goodnes of God in preparing the hearts of vnbeleeuers by meanes of this miracle to bee ready to imbrace his Sonne:* 1.201 detesting the wickednes of Iulian that to disco∣uer his contempt of Christ and malice against Christ (whose faith he had open∣ly re••ounced) amongst other villanies, which hee offered, caused the Pagans in a triumph to draw this image about the streetes, & breaking it in peeces to set vp the image of himselfe: which God ouerthrew with fire frō heauen, not in defence of the brasen shape: but of his holy name prophaned and illuded by this Apostata.

Phi.

This image the Apostles sawe and suffered.

Theo.

A memoriall of their masters act not abused by the people,* 1.202 and erected before they came to preach the Gospell to that place, they might suffer: but they neuer taught men to make the like, nor allowed any to worshippe that.

Phi.

Wee thinke they learned the setting vppe of this image from the Apostles.

Theo.

Eusebius sayth, they did it of an heathenish custome, and not of an Apostolike instruction. His wordes are,* 1.203 And no maruell, that the Heathens which were healed of our Sa∣uiour did him this (honour,) for so much as wee haue seene the images of his Apostles Paul and Peter and of Christ himselfe drawen in colours and kept in tables, which kinde of honour, antiquitie of a custome which they vsed when they were heathens, was wont to yeelde to such as they coun∣ted (Benefactors &) Sauiors.

Phi.

By that you see the images of Christ & his Apostles were expressed in colours and reserued by the auncient christians long before Eusebius.

Theo.

Eusebius doeth not report it as a thing either openly receiued in Churches, or generally vsed of all christians; but as a secrete and seldome mat∣ter, rising from the perswasion and affection of some which whiles they were heathen, had yeelded that honour to other of their friendes & fautors, to whom they were most beholding.

For had the Apostles deliuered any such tradition, or the Primatiue church of Christ vsed any publike erection of images,* 1.204 as you suppose, would the coun∣cell of Eliberis in Spaine assembled about the time of Constantine the great, in plaine words haue banished them out of their churches? Placuit picturas in ec∣clesiis esse non debere, ne quod colitur aut adoratur, in parietibus d•• pingatur. We haue decreed that pictures ought not to be in the churches, lest that which is wor¦shipped or adored be painted on walles.* 1.205 Woulde S. Augustine, thinke you, haue pronounced them worthy to erre which sought Christ & his Apostles in pictures & paintings, if the people had bin taught that way to seeke him? Sic om∣nino errare me••uerunt qui Christum & Apostolos eius non in sanctis codicibus sed in pictis parietibus quaesierunt. So they deserued to erre, which sought Christ and his Apostles not in the sacred Scriptures but in paynted walles.

Or would Epiphanius haue rent the image, which he found hanging in the church by Ierusalem, and pronounced such painted imagery, notwithstanding

it represented Christ or one of his Sainctes to be contrary to the Scriptures, & to the religion of Christ.* 1.206 His words are, (When I entered the church to pray,) I found hanging there in the enterance of the saide church, a stained and a painted cloath hauing the image as it were of Christ or one of the Sainctes. When I sawe this, that against the authoritie of the Scriptures the image of a man was hanged vp in the church, I did teare it in sunder. And I pray you hereafter to command, that such cloathes repugnant to our religion, be not hanged in the church of Christ. It becommeth your fatherhood rather to haue this care to banish this superstition vnfit for Christes church, and for the people committed to your charge. By this you may see that images were not receiued, much lesse adored in the church of Christ, whiles these anciēt fathers liued: and that to remoue them and keepe them out of the church was then adiudged a seemely care for Christian Bishoppes, agreeable with the Ca∣tholike profession, and publike vse of the church of Christ in those dayes.

Phi.

Gregorie the first, you know, was of an other minde: that images should be suffered and not defaced in the church.* 1.207

Theo.

Gregorie liued 300. yeares after the councell of Eliberis, and 200. after Epiphanius, in which time the painting of stories was crept into the church, as an ornament for the naked walles, and a meane to set before the peoples eyes the liues and labours of the Sainctes and Martyrs: but that pictures or images in the church shoulde bee worshipped or adored, Gregorie did in most manifest words abhorre, alleadging the law of God which we do that nothing made with hands should be adored (or serued).* 1.208

Phi.

Not with diuine honor.

Theo.

You meane with no part of that honor, which God requireth of vs.

Phi.

What else? They must not haue diuine honour in whole, or in part.

Theo.

Then must they haue none at all. For God requi∣reth bodily honor no lesse than ghostly, as due to him: and by his law excludeth all thinges made with handes from hauing either in saying, Thou shalt not bow down to them, nor serue them.* 1.209

Phi.

Bowing the knee, is not diuine honour, but such as wee yeeld to Pa∣rents & Magistrates.

Theo.

Bowing the knee is a part of Gods honor, as also holding vp the handes,* 1.210 and lifting vp the eyes: a 1.211 To me, saith God, shall euery knee bow. b 1.212For this cause, saith Paul, doe I know my knees vnto the father of our Lord Iesus Christ: shewing that the bowing of our knees is an ho∣nour due to God, euen as the lifting vppe of our handes and eyes belon∣geth likewise vnto him. c 1.213 As long as I liue, sayeth Dauid, I will ma∣gnifie thee on this maner, and lift vp my handes in thy name: d 1.214I will, sayeth the Apostle, that the men pray euerie where, lifting vp pure handes. And so for the rest. e 1.215Vnto thee, saith Dauid, do I lift vp mine eyes, thou that dwel∣lest in the heauens. And againe,f 1.216 Mine eyes are euer vnto the Lord. And so of our Sauiour when he praied, S. Iohn reporteth, g 1.217 He lift vp his eyes to hea∣uen and saide. The outward honor therefore of eyes, handes, & kne••s God re∣quireth of vs as his due, though chiefly and principally the heart, which he will

not suffer any man to haue besides himselfe,* 1.218 howsoeuer he allow those that pre∣sent his goodnesse and glorie in blessing and iudging, as Parents and Magi∣strates, to haue some part of his corporall, but in no wise of his spirituall ho∣nour.

Phi.

And so many images haue part of his external, though not of his inter∣nal honour, which is the higher of the twaine, and meeter for the diuine ma∣iesty.

Theo.

It is not in your handes to make allowance of Gods honour to whome you list; and againe God himselfe hath made a plaine prohibition in this case that images shall haue no part of his externall honour. The wordes are as cleare as day light; thou shalt not bow downe to them.

Phi.

Not to the images of false Gods.

Theo.

It is but lost labor, to reason with such wrang∣lars. Haue not I mainly proued that this precept expressely forbiddeth the I∣mage of the true God to be made or bowed vnto? Why then take you vp those shifts againe, which be false and refuted?

Phi.

If we may not bow to holy images as vnto thinges that be superiour and better than man,* 1.219 yet we may imbrace and loue them, as thinges which we like, and that both by the vse of the Greeke tongue and speech of the scripture is called adoration, as Tharasius the Patriarke of Constantinople in his * 1.220 e∣pistle to Irene the Empresse and her sonne doth largely confirme.

Theo.

You put me in minde, what cunning was vsed in the second Nicene councell to saue your poppets vpright, and to set a colour on their vngodly decree that images should be worshipped. When they saw themselues not able to proue by Scrip∣ture or father that images should be reuerenced and adored, and they had pro∣nounced him * 1.221 accursed that doubted of the adoration of images, your wise & worthy Bishops thought it safest to shroude their wicked resolution vnder the doubtfull & equiuocate sense of the word adoration: because 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in greeke did signifie not onely to bowe for deuotion and religion, but also to imbrace for loue and affection, as friendes and familyars when they happen to meete.

So Tharasius and the whole Synod defend the conclusion which they made in that councel.* 1.222 For shewing whose images they would haue to be receiued: they adde, Sunt hae adorandae etiam, id est exosculandae & amandae. Idem enim haec signifi∣cant iuxta antiquam Graeciae dialecton. Nam 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 significat. quod quis 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, id etiam 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: & quod 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, id omnino 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. These images (of Christ and his Sainctes) are also to bee adored, that is to kissed and loued. These wordes are all of one force. To adore doth signifie both to imbrace & to loue. For that which a man * 1.223 loueth, that he adoreth: & that which he adoreth, that he earnestly loueth. The naturall affection and loue which wee beare toward our friendes doe witnes this. For so two (friendes) when they meete (embrace & salute ech other.) And ••••ing some places of the scripture where adoration is taken for a reuerent and louely salutation: as when * 1.224 Iacob bowed himselfe before Esau, and * 1.225 Abraham before the people of Heth, & * 1.226 Dauid before * 1.227 Ionathan and the Pharisees were noted by our Sauiour for * louing

such magistrall obeisance, they inferre; Has quoque adorandas & salutandas puta∣mus. We thinke images are (in like maner) to be adored and saluted: preten∣ding it to be a matter of faith & christian pietie to adore images: and when they come to the vpshot concluding nothing but an externall and ciuill kinde of im∣bracing or kissing,* 1.228 such as a man may giue to the coate which he weareth, to the meat which he eateth, to euery thing that he loueth, without respect of religion or thought of deuotion.

Phi.

Then you should the sooner graunt, that images may be adored, since they mean that kind of adoration which is without al danger of idolatry.

Theo.

* 1.229Then you be wise diuines, to make adoration of images a point of catholike do∣ctrine, since the Bishops of Nice, whose actes you would seeme to follow, in∣terprete adoration to be but a familiar and friendly kissing or saluting: such as men might yeeld to the manger where Christ laye swathed: to the howsen which he entered: to the waters on which hee walked: to the hilles, deserts, highwayes, and cities where he prayed, preached, iournied or suffered: the adoration of which things and places I trust you will not make a part of the Catholike faith.

Phi.

Compare you an image with a manger?

Theo.

It is the comparison of your owne councell in the very same epistle:* 1.230 alleadging these words of Gre∣gory the diuine, iustifie their adoration of images: Worshippe Bethleem, a∣dore the manger. If the stable & manger where Christ lay must haue the same adoration that images haue; yea that the crosse hath whereon Christ died: howe shamefully is your church fallen not onely from God, but euen from her owne councels, in allowing the very same honor to images, that is due to Christ him∣selfe?

Phi.

The crosse they did flatly adore: as their own words witnes, which pre∣sently insue.* 1.231 Crucem tuam adoramus Domine. We adore thy crosse O Lord. And that,* 1.232 as it should seeme, was a part of the church seruice. For they say, Cūvinifi∣cam crucem salutamus, conuenienter canimus: when we salute the crosse that procured vs life,* 1.233 we doe well to sing: thy crosse, Lord, do we adore.

Theo.

* 1.234So did they the speare which pearced his side. The next wordes are, The speare,* 1.235 which opened thy sacred and lifegiuing side, wee adore. But what they ment, by that adoratiō they straightway expound: which adoration is no∣thing else but a salutation, or an imbracing, if you so rather like to cal it, as is hereby declared, for that we touch those things with our lips.

Phi.

Yet this is a kinde of adoration.

Theo.

But not such as your church and schooles after∣ward defended and yeelded vnto material images, & crosses. For you in plaine words require 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is diuine honor for the wodden crosse and image of Christ; whereas the second Nicene councel in this epistle doth wholy renounce that, as a manifest and wicked errour. And therfore you do nothing lesse than accord with that Councell which is so much in your mouthes, they decreeing but a reuerent salutation, and you giuing diuine adoration to the image & crosse of Christ: which be doctrines mightily repugning ech to other, if you note them

well, though the word adoration be vsed in both.

And did you consent with thē as you do not, neither their resolution, nor yours is catholike:* 1.236 they ventering farther than either scriptures or fathers before did lead them, and that vpon the doubtfull accepcion of the word adoring, and blind presumption that external reuerence (which they ment therby) might be giuen for loue, feare, fauor or curtesie without impairing the honour due to God: and you being deceiued by the heat of their speech, and taking adoration for a reli∣gious and deuoute submission of body and soule, such as belonged to the person himselfe represented by the image: and that in our Sauiour is diuine and hea∣uenly honor.

Phi.

Should not the crosse of Christ haue diuine honour?

Theo.

The crosse being taken for his death and passion, as the scriptures vse the word,* 1.237 must bee adored as the true and onely meane of our redemption and saluation: but the wood, on which hee hung, may not, much lesse the signe of it, as you nowe abuse it. You hearde Sainct Ambrose say, that to adore the wood, on which the Lorde died, was an heathenish errour, and vanitie of the wicked: And before him Arnobius made this answere for all Christians: Cruces nec columus,* 1.238 nec optamus: vos plane, qui ligneos Deos consecratis, cruces ligneas vt Deorum vestrorum partes, forsitan adoratis: Crosses wee neyther worship, nor wish for: you that dedicate woodden Gods, you happily adore wood∣den crosses, as partes of your Gods. But what neede I farther refell that councell as not catholike which was presently reiected and pithily confuted by the Bishoppes and churches of the West: whose labours are extant at this day, brought to light by men of your owne religion, and saued from the moothes which you ment should consume them? Thither wee sende you, there you shall finde both your adoration of images disclaimed as vncatholike, and the reasons and authorities of your second Nicene councell, throughly skanned and scatte∣red, almost 800. yeares before our time.

Phi.

That booke we receiue not; as thinking it to be rather some late forgerie of yours than a monument of that antiquitie.

Theo.

If you receiue not the books that were safe in your own keeping,* 1.239 and published by your neerest friends, howe should we trust the corruptions that are framed to your purposes and no where foūd but in your own libraries?

Phi.

Since you distrust our writtē records, why do you not beleeue the faithful report of the church, which is the pillour of truth, & can not be corrupted?

The.

Nay since forgeries be so rise, that no father is free from them, & so grosse that euery child may discerne thē, why do not you beleeue the report of God himselfe, the founder and builder of the church; and that wit∣nessed in his word, of which there is no suspition, and against the which there is no exception?

Phi.

As though we did not.

Theo.

Then for adoration of images, which you defend, shew what presidēt you haue in the word of God.

Phi.

We neede not.

Theo.

We know you cannot.

Phi.

And I reply that we neede not.

The.

Doth it concerne the christian faith and Catholike religion which the godly must professe, or no?

Phi.

It doeth.

Theo.

* 1.240Then must you shew some authority for it in the sacred scriptures, or else they must repel it as impious.

Phi.

We haue it by tradition from the Apo∣stles.

Theo.

You would haue wrested so much out of S. Basill, but that your cunning failed you.

Phi.

From them we had it.

Theo.

Wee say you had no such thing from them: and further we adde, that if it be a matter of doctrine & beliefe, as you make it, you must haue it testified in their writinges, and not concealed a∣mong their traditions

Phi.

* 1.241No Sir, we beleeue many thinges (whereof this is one) that are not written, but were deliuered vs by secrete succession.

Theo.

The greater is your sinne, and the vnsounder is your Creede. In matters of faith you should beleeue nothing but that which is expressely warranted by the scriptures. And therefore in this and other points of your Romish deuotion now brought to tri∣all, if you want the foundation of true faith and religion, in vaine do you seeke to make a shew of catholicisme with such patches & pamslets, as Monks & Friers haue forged & colored with the names of fathers. The catholike church of Christ neuer receiued nor beleeued any point of faith vppon tradition without the Scriptures.

Phi.

* 1.242We haue to the contrary plaine Scriptures, al the fathers, most euident reasons, that we must either beleeue traditions, or nothing at all.

Theo.

Wee knowe you can bragge; but you haue neither Scripture, father nor reason to impugne that which we affirme.* 1.243

Phi.

For traditions we haue.

Theo.

Tradition is any thing that hath beene deliuered or taught, by word or mouth or by writing, touching the groundes of faith, or circumstances and ceremonies of christian Religion. And therefore when you muster the fathers to disproue the scriptures, and to e∣stablish an vnwritten faith vnder the credit of traditions, you corrupt the wri∣ters, and abuse the readers.

Phi.

How can we doe that, when wee bring you the very words of the Authors themselues?

Theo.

H••w can you choose but doe it, when you force the fathers to speake against themselues?

Phi.

Do wee?

Theo.

* 1.244Your Rhemish translators, perceiuing the weight of their whole cause to lie on this, haue marshalled nine fathers in a ranke, namely: S. Chrysostom, S. Basill, S. Hierom, S. Augustine, S. Epiphanius, S. Ireneus, S. Ter∣tullian, S. Cyprian, and Origen; but to what purpose, can you tell?

Phi.

To proue that we must either beleeue traditions or nothing.

Theo.

Beleeue them, as articles of our faith, or exercises of our profession?

Phi.

Why make you that distinction?

Theo.

Because the very same fathers, that say traditi∣ons must bee receiued besides the Scriptures, auouch likewise, as I before haue shewed, that no matter of faith or of any moment to saluation must be re∣ceiued or beleeued without scriptures.* 1.245 Now choose whether you will graunt a flat contradiction in them, or conclude with vs, ergo the traditions which they meane, bee no partes nor pointes of the christian faith. And so these nine fa∣thers, on whose credits you thought to plant your late found faith, hold nothing with you, but rather against you.

Phi.

How make you that appeare?

Theo.

Uiew them once more. Wee haue

their plaine confession that all things necessary to saluation are comprised in the scriptures. You produce them to witnes that your traditions bee not comprised in the scriptures: Ergo by your own deponents we conclude that your traditiōs be neither necessary to saluation, nor points of the catholik faith, without which we can not be saued. Looke well to this issue they must either dissent from your religion, or from themselues.

Phi.

Your maior is not yet proued.

Theo.

Yes, with firm & surer authorities, than those be which you bring; let the places be skanned, which I before rehear∣sed, & the matter left to the iudgement of the reader; Or if you be loath to looke so far back, examine shortly th••se that follow. a 1.246 The holy Scriptures inspired from heauen, are sufficient for all instruction of truth, sayth Athanasius. b 1.247The Gospell, saith Chrysostom, containeth al things: c 1.248 whatsoeuer is requisite for saluation, al that is fully laid downe in the Scriptures. In the two Testa∣ments, sayth Cyril, d 1.249 euery word (or thing) that pertaineth to God may be re∣quired & discussed. e 1.250 Sufficiēt to vs for saluatiō is the truth of (Gods) precepts saith Ambrose. And Augustin, f 1.251 There were chosen to be written, such things as seemed (to the holy ghost) sufficient for the saluation of the faithfull. Vin∣centius Lirinensis; whō you greatly boast of, but without all cause, agreeth w^t the rest, that g 1.252 The Canon of the Scripture is perfect & sufficient & more thā sufficient, to al things. And againe, Not that, saith he,h 1.253 The canon alone is not sufficient for al things; as it were taking great heed least he should seeme to de∣ny the fulnes of the scriptures which you purposely impugne vnder a colour of catholicisme by his writings.

Now cite not only nine,* 1.254 but nines kore fathers if you wil, for traditions, & the more you stirre, the worse you speed. For the traditions which they mention bee either points of faith or not. If they be, then by the general confession of all anti∣quity, they must be warrāted by the scriptures, or els we must reiect thē▪ If they be no parts nor consequents of the christian faith, then do not those fathers wea∣ken our assertion, whē we say that all points of faith must be proued by the scri∣ptures, & this we gaine besides, that the traditiōs which you make y^e groūdwork of al your religion, as they be not written, so be they not necessary to saluation.

Phi.

The faith it selfe is proued by tradition.* 1.255

Theo.

That doctrine which the Apostles deliuered by word of mouth, the very same they put afterward in wri∣ting y^t it might be the touchstone & triall of truth in times to come: but this is nothing to such vnwritten verities as be different from the scriptures. Teach what you wil by tradition, so it accord with the written word of God; we bée not against it: but you may not build any point of faith vpon tradition, except the scriptures confirme the same.

Phi.

This is an error of yours, which you seeke to bolster against the church.

The.

You giue vs words, we giue you proofs;* 1.256 this which you cal an error of ours was taught & receiued in the primatiue church for a catholik truth; & except you cā shew some points of faith which the fathers beleeued vpō traditiō w^tout scrip∣tures, the world wil suspect y^t you make traditiōs but a cloake for your heresies.

Phi.

* 1.257S▪ Augustin often writeth that many of the articles of our religion & points of highest importance, are not so much to be proued by scriptures, as by traditiō.

The.

You bely so many, that it is no newes for you to bely S. Austen. Where saith he so?

Phi.

* 1.258Namely auouching, that in no wise we could beleeue that children in their in∣fancy should be baptised, if it were not an Apostolik tradition. De gen. ad lit. lib. 10 cap. 23.

Theo.

But where doth S. Austen write this often & that of many arti∣cles of religion & points of highest importance?* 1.259 Of so many high points you should haue shewed two at least.

Phi.

Tradition caused him to beleeue, that the baptized of heretiks should not be rebaptized, notwithstanding S. Cryprians autority & the mani∣fold scriptures aleaged by him, though they seemed neuer so pregnāt. de bap. lib. 2. cap. 7.

Theo.

Your heades bee so ful of traditions, that you can not report a father without corruptions.* 1.260 It is not true that Tradition (& nothing else) caused him to beleeue this against Cypriās authority: he was armed with scriptures & reasons inuincible as himselfe both sheweth and saieth. Prouoking a Donatist to con∣ferre with him about this errour, Ratione agamus, di••inarum scripturarum authoritatibus agamus, Let vs discusse this matter, saith he, by argumēt, by the authorities of the diuine scriptures. And repeating a reason y^t was expressed in the Princes edict forbidding rebaptizatiō, he maketh the rebaptizers this offer: Faciant mille Concilia Episcopi vestri,* 1.261 huic vni sententiae respondeant, & ad quod vo∣lueritis consentimus vobis. Let your Bishops assemble a thowsand councels, & answere but this one sentence, we yeeld to you at your pleasures. And there∣fore he doubted not to say of Cyprian,* 1.262 though otherwise he did honour him very much, Aliter sapi••t quam veritas diligentius considerata patefecit. He was of an other opinion than that which the truth vpon more diligent consideration reueiled And when Cypriās epistle in this case was obiected, he replied:* 1.263 Cypri∣ans epistles I esteeme not as canonicall but I cōsider them by the canonical (scriptures:) & that which in them agreeth with the authority of the diuine scriptures I receiue with his praise: that which doth not agree, by his leaue I refuse. The general custom of the c••u••ch reuoked him from following Cypri••••s authority, though it were great, and brought him to the deeper debating of the question, but he which sayth that S. Augustine in all his conferences and writinges aleadgeth nothing against rebaptization but tradition, may be reba∣ptized, if his christianity be no more than his cunning.

Phi.

* 1.264For baptizing of infants his words be plaine. It were not at al to be be∣leeued, if it were not an Apostolike tradition.

Theo.

I see the words wel e∣nough; but the meaning of the speaker in this place, and the likenesse of the same speach in other places, make me to thinke, that a letter too much is crept into these wordes, as through the iniuries of times, and varietie of scribes ma∣ny thowsand deprauations and diuerse lections were and are yet in the workes of S. Augustine, and other fathers not onely by the iudgement of the learned but by the very sight of their margins.

Phi.

A letter to much? which is it?

Theo.

You read Nec omnino credenda nisi Apostolica esset traditio: I thinke it shoulde bee Nec omnino credenda nisi Apostolica esse traditio.* 1.265 Esset for esse is a scope in wri∣ting

soone committed, but a matter of some moment in altering the sense.

Phi.

And therefore you may not correct it without apparent proofe.

Theo.

I may suspect it, though I take not vpō me to correct it, but leaue it to the indif∣ferent reader.

Phi.

You must be led thereunto with very good reason.

Theo.

First the very course of the sentence leadeth mee so to thinke.* 1.266 Sainct Augustine in these three distunctiues, Nequaquam spernenda, neque vllo mo∣do superflua deputanda, nec omnino credenda, The custome of (our) mother the Church in baptizing (her) infantes is neither to be despised,* 1.267 nor anie waie to bee counted superfluous, nor at all to bee beleeued, did not meane to contradict him-sel••e, but by steppes to increase the credit of this custome: and the third part, Nec omnino credenda, Not at all to be beleeued doeth ra∣ther euert all that went before, than giue you any farther commendation to that Tradition. For Not at all to be beleeued, is as much as to be despi∣sed and counted superfluous, which is repugnant to the wordes precedent. But reading Esse ••or Esset, the partes are consequent ech after other in bet∣ter order, and the last is the same that Sainct Augustine in other places doth often vtter in the very like manner and kinde of speech that here is vsed. The custome of (our) mother the church in baptizing (her) infants, is nei∣ther to bee despised, nor by any meanes to bee accompted superfluous, nec omnino credenda nisi Apostolica esse traditio, nor at all to bee thought to be any other than an Apostolike tradition. So speaking elsewhere of the very same matter, he sayth, a 1.268 Non nisi authoritate Apostolica traditum rectissimè creditur. It is most rightly beleeued to bee none other than a tradition of the Apostles. Where wee finde not onely the same purpose, but the verie same phrase and force of speech that were vsed before. And so againe of that and such like: a 1.269 Many thinges are not founde in the (Apostles) writinges nor in the Councels of those that came after them, and yet because they be obserued of the vniuersall Church, Non nisi ab ipsis tradita & commen∣data creduntur, they are thought to haue bin deliuered and commended by none but by them.

Phi.

This sense is not amisse,* 1.270 if the words would beare it, but the text is Esset as we translate it.

Theo.

The sense which you vrge is first against your selues, next against S. Austen himselfe in other places, and lastly (which is it that you shoote at) it ouerthroweth not our assertion.

Phi.

It requireth some paines to proue all this.

Theo.

Not so much perhappes as you thinke. For will you confesse that no custome of the church must be receiued or beleeued, except it be Apostolike? Admit this, and see whether we will not presently cast off the most part of the preceptes and customes of your Church, as not descen∣ding from the Apostles, and therefore not at all to bee beleeued by your owne verdict.

And as for Sainct Augustine, if you thinke hee woulde saie that The custome of the (vniuersall) Church is not at all to be beleeued, except it bee Apostolik, reade this resolution better & you wil leaue that misconstruction of his wordes.

c 1.271Those things which we keep, saith he, not written but deliuered by traditiō, the which the whole world obserueth, must be conceiued to haue bin com∣mended & ordained, vel ab ipsis Apostolis, vel plenarijs concilijs quorum est in eccle∣sia saluberrima authoritas, either by the Apostles themselues, or else by general councels, whose autority in the church is most wholsom. The custom of the church he saith must be retained, though it be not Apostolike, but decreed by o∣thers of later age & mean••r credit than the Apostles, if their assemblies & synods were general. And againe,d 1.272 In hijs rebus de quibus nihil certi statuit scriptura diuina mos populi Dei, vel instituta Maiorum pro lege tenenda sunt. In those things where the diuine scripture appointeth no certainty, the custome of the people of God & ordinances of forefathers must bee helde for a law.* 1.273 If the custome of Gods people & the ordināces of elders must be kept for a law, then the custom of the church in baptizing her infants might not be reiected though it were not A∣postolike, & so S. Austen with your esset cleane crosseth himselfe.

* 1.274Lastly where you thinke to giue vs the foile with pressing this place, we easily grant you that The custom of the church in baptizing her infantes were not to be be∣leeued, if it were not in Apostolike tradition. You haue your own reading, what are you the better?

Phi.

Ergo some points of faith are beleeued without the scrip∣tures & besides the scriptures.

The.

Sir, I deny your argument.

Phi.

This is be∣leeued by tradition, ergo not by scripture.

Theo.

A tradition it may be & yet writ∣ten in the scriptures. S. Paul calleth the Lords supper a traditiō, & yet it is writ∣ten,* 1.275 Ego accepi à Domino quod & tradidi vobis, I receiued of the Lord, that which I deliuered vnto you. The death and resurrection of Christ he likewise caled a tradition confirmed by the Scriptures.* 1.276 Tradidi vobis inprimis, quod & accepi: I deliuered vnto you first of all which I also receiued, that Christ died for our sinnes according to the Scriptures, and was buried and rose the thirde daie according to the Scriptures. And in plainer, words to the Thessalonians.* 1.277 Holde fast, sayeth hee, the traditions which you haue learned, either by speeche or Epistle of ours, calling those thinges that be written in his epistles his traditions.

Phi.

But the fathers vse the word otherwise, for that which is not written.

Theo.

Sometimes they do, somtimes they do not. S. Cyprian sayth, Whence is this tradition?* 1.278 Whether doeth it descend from the Lordes authority and the Gospell, or commeth it from the precepts and epistles of the Apostles? If it be commaunded in the Gospell, or contained in the Epistles or Actes of the Apostles, let this holy tradition be obserued. And so S. Basill, Our ba∣ptisme is according to the tradition of the Lord,* 1.279 in the name of the father▪ the Sonne and the holy Ghost. Ireneus, Tertullian, Hierom, Augustine and others call the short rehearsal of the christian faith, which is our common Creede, an old & Apostolik traditiō, & yet no part of the creede is without or be∣sides the warrant of the Scriptures.

Phi.

I know it may be a tradition, and yet reuokeable to the Scriptures and proueable by the Scriptures, but the baptisme of infantes Sainct Augustine

saith hath no witnes in the scriptures.

Theo.

Where saith he so?

Phi.

In many places.* 1.280

Theo.

Name but one.

Phi.

There be many things which the vniuersal Church obserueth, and for that cause they be well thought to haue beene commaunded by the Apostles, though they be not found writ∣ten.

Theo.

How proue you this to be one of those many?

Phi.

Because wee finde it not written, but only deliuered by tradition.

Theo.

You say so: but where doth S. Augustine say so?

Phi.

In the wordes which we first alleaged It were not to be beleeued if it were not an Apostolike tradition. If it were writ∣ten it must be beleeued though it were no Tradition.

Theo.

You deale with the fathers, as you doe with the scriptures. S. Austen doth not say the bap∣tisme of infants were not to be beleeued,* 1.281 but, The custome of the Church in (a matter of so great weight as) the baptizing of infants were not to be tru∣sted if the tradition were not Apostolike. The church might not haue presu∣med to baptize infants if the Apostles had not begunne it: what gaine you by that? Thereby you may proue that the Apostles did it, and that the Church of her selfe and her own authoritie might not doe it, more you cannot proue.

Phi.

But doth S. Austen any where say that the baptisme of Children is contained in the scriptures?

Theo.

What if he went not so farre in wordes, be∣cause the matter was not in question whiles he liued, is that any ground for you to conclude that it is not allowed by the Scriptures?

Phi.

If he keepe si∣lence,* 1.282 it is a shrewde signe that it is not.

Theo.

So long as no man did im∣pugne it, there was no need he should defend it; the question in his time was not whether it were lawful for infants to be baptized, but whether it were needfull for thē or no. The Pelagians held it to be superfluous, for y^• infantes were void of original sinne: which was their error. That he mightily reproueth by mani∣fest Scriptures and sheweth that infants as well as others bee excluded from the kingdome of God, if they be not baptized. Farther hee waded not, as be∣ing not farther vrged, and troubled enough besides with refuting other here∣sies; and yet as occasion serued hee brought more than Tradition for the bapti∣zing of children.* 1.283 If any man, sayth he, se••ke for diuine authoritie in this mat∣ter, we may truely coniecture by circūcision, what effect the Sacrament of baptisme hath in infants, vsing a very forcible argumēt in this case, that if chil∣dren might receiue the seale of the former couenant vnder Moses, why not of the later established in the blood of Christ?

Phi.

He saith we may coniecture it, but he doth not say we may proue it.

Theo.

He repeateth the reason with Veraciter conijcere possumus, We may very truly coniecture, and a true coniecture is no vntrue persuasion: but as I said it was not then in doubt, and therefore no maruaile if that Learned father la∣boured not that question to the depth. Had it beene denyed, as in our dayes it is, he woulde haue founde the same scriptures to confirme it that we doe. And to say the trueth his euident illations out of the Scriptures that baptisme is needfull for Infants, make sufficient demonstration that baptisme is lawfull for Infants, els it would follow that no child might be saued; which is an

hainous and monsterous error, directly fighting with the manifest scriptures. For where without baptisme they cannot be saued, by reason original sin is not remitted but in baptisme as S. Austen concludeth out of the wordes of our Sauiour * 1.284 Except a man be borne of water and of the spirite he cannot en∣ter the kingdome of God; If children be excluded from baptism, they be con∣sequently excluded from the kingdome of God; which is flatly repugnant to the word of God.

Phi.

It is no meaning of ours to exclude children from baptisme, but to let you vnderstand that you cannot shew by the Scriptures that children were baptized.

Theo.

I graunt we cannot, and adde, we neede not. The Scrip∣tures we say containe al matters of faith, not of fact. That children were bap∣tized we proue by the practise of Christes Church and not by the scriptures.* 1.285 That children may bee baptized we proue not only by the Tradition of the Apostles, but also by the sequele of the Scriptures themselues.

Our Sauiour saith of Children, a 1.286 It is not the will of your father, which is in heauen, that one of these litle ones should perishe. Now choose you whether they shall be saued without baptisme, or perishe for lacke of baptisme. Againe the Lord saith, b 1.287 Suffer the litle children and forbid them not to come vnto me: for the kingdome of heauen belongeth vnto such. They must en∣ter the kingdome of God before they can possesse it, and c 1.288 enter it they cannot vntill they be new borne of water and the holy Ghost. Now say, wil you ex∣clude them from that which God hath prouided for them: or will admitte them to be heires with Christ before they bee engraffed into Christ by Baptisme? The Apostle saith to the great comforte of all Christian Parents; The d 1.289 vn∣beleeuing husband is sanctified by the wife (that beleeueth,) and the vn∣beleeuing wife is sanctified by the husband (that beleeueth:) els were your children vncleane, but nowe are they holy. This is spoken not of the secret election of the faithfull, which is neither common to all nor knowen to any, but of their Christian profession whereby they be e 1.290 called to be Sainctes, that is an f 1.291holy & peculiar people vnto God. For al things be holy that be dedicated to his vse, & this kinde of holines S. Paul deriueth from the roote to the branches, g 1.292If the roote be holy so are the branches. If then Infants be partakers of the same vocation & holynes with their parents, & without baptisme (which is the seale of Gods couenāt with vs, in the blood of his sonne) neither we nor our chil∣dren can be holy, surely the children of Sainctes if they be excluded from bap∣tisme, are as vnholy and vncleane as the children of Infidels which vtterly subuerteth sainct Pauls Doctrine. If to auoide this place you suppose holinesse to bee meant of the inward satisfaction of Gods spirite; besides that children drawe inward corruption not holinesse from their Christian Parents, yet this way wee also conclude that Children must bee Baptized: for where the spirite of God is precedent, the seruice of man must bee consequent, as sainct Peter teacheth. h 1.293 Can any man forbid water that these shoulde not bee baptized, which haue receiued the holy Ghost? So

that, take which you will and say what you can, our conclusion is vnmoue∣able. And since children bee defiled by Adam, if they may not bee washed by Christ, the disobedience of man shal bee mightier vnto condemnation, than the grace of God and obedience of Christ vnto iustification, which the i 1.294 Scrip∣tures reiect as a wicked absurditie.

Wherefore the church absolutely and flatly may not assure saluation to chil∣dren vnbaptized, lest they seeme naturally innocent or generally sanctified with∣out baptisme: albeit their Parents desiring and seeking it, if they bee preuented by mortall necessitie wee must leaue them to the goodnes,* 1.295 and secret election of God not without hope: because in their Parents a 1.296 there wanted no wil, but an extremitie disappointed them: and in the children the let was b 1.297 weaknes of age, not wickednes of heart: and so the sacramēt omitted, not for c 1.298 any con∣tempt of religion: but by strictnes of time: in which cases S. Augustine con∣fesseth the want of baptisme may be supplied, if it so please God: mary they may not chalenge it, nor we promise it.

Much more might bee sayde, but I content my selfe with the former rea∣sons till you refute them. And hauing the certaine practise of the Apostles in baptizing Infants witnessed by the Church of Ch••ist, and deliuered vn∣to the Church for the confirmation of those thinges which we alleage,* 1.299 wee count them irrefutable.

Philand.

Neither doe I mislike the thing, but I muse why Saint Augustine claymed wholy by Tradition, if so much Scrip∣ture might bee brought for the matter.

Theoph.

Expresse precept to bap∣tize infantes or plaine example where they were baptized, the scripture hath none: and therefore Saint Augustine did well to reuerence the Tradition which hee sawe was Apostolike, and if any man vrge vs to prooue that children were baptized wee must flee to the same Tradition with him: But if it bee im∣pugned as a thing vnlawfull and dissonant from the Scriptures, we must then lift the ground of that Tradition by the scriptures, because it toucheth the sal∣uation or condemnation of Christian Infants: And so would S. Austen haue exactly and learnedly doone, wee doubt not, if that point had beene controuer∣sed in his time.

Philand.

Hee woulde you say: but hee did not wee knowe, and that cau∣seth vs to take it for an vnwritten Tradition.

Theoph.

A tradition we grant, but agreeable to the Scriptures. And though Saint Austen doe not say so, that is no reason for you to conclude it is not so; silence is no proofe. Nay if hee had called it an vnwritten Tradition, as hee doeth not, that were no let but it might be confirmed by the scriptures, as it is: for the precept is not writ∣ten, though the causes and consequents may bee iustified by that which is written.* 1.300 And this is not straunge with Saint Austen to call that an vn∣written Tradition, which him-selfe confesseth may be warranted by the scrip∣tures.

Phi.

What haue wee here? One and the same Tradition confessed by saint Augustine to bee both written and vnwritten?

Theoph.

One and the same Tradition, I say confessed to bee written, and yet warranted

by the Scriptures.

Phi.

That were newes.

Theo.

None at all. Goe no farther than your second example of rebaptizing, and you shall see it to be true.

S. Augustine calleth it an vnwritten Tradition or Custome of the church in many places.* 1.301 Hee sayth expressely of it, Quam consuetudinem credo ex Apo∣stolica Traditione venientem, sicut multa non inueniuntur in Literis eorum &c. Which custome I think came from the apostles, as many (other) things (that) are not found in their writings.* 1.302 And againe of the very same, Apostoli nihil qui∣dem exinde praeceperunt. The Apostles in deede commaunded nothing in that case: as also there bee many thinges which the whole Church obserueth though they be not found written.

Phi.

That we knowe to be true, neuer spend more time about it, but let vs heare where S. Austen saith this Custome is also warranted by the scriptures.

Theo.

You can not misse it, if you read the very same bookes where the other is witnessed.

* 1.303Now, saith he, lest I seeme to dispute this matter by humane reasons, be∣cause the darkenes of this question draue great men, and men endued with great charitie, the bishops that were in former ages of the church before the schisme of Donatus to doubt and striue, but without breach of vnitie, ex e∣uangelio profero certa Documenta quibus Domino adiuuante demonstro: Out of the Gospel I bring sure groundes by Gods helpe to make proofe (thereof.) And hauing disputed it a while, We * 1.304follow that, saith he, which the custome of the church hath alwaies obserued, & a plenarie councel cōfirmed. And the rea∣sons and testimonies of scriptures on both sides being throughly weighed I may say, we follow that which trueth hath declared.* 1.305 And repeating the e∣uidence of his side, he saith it may be vnderstood by the former custome of the Church, by the strength of a generall councell that followed by so many & so weightie testimonies of the holy scriptures, by manifolde instructions out of Cyprians owne workes and very plaine arguments of trueth. And therefore drawing to an end he saith,* 1.306 It might perhaps suffice that (our) reasons being so oft repeated and diuersly debated and handled in disputing, and the Do∣cuments of the holy Scriptures being added, and so many testimonies of Cy∣prian him-selfe concurring, iam etiam corde tardiores quantum existimo intelli∣gunt, by this time the weaker and duller sort of men as I thinke vnderstande that the baptisme of Christ can not bee violated, by no peruersenesse of the partie that giueth it or taketh it, and therefore must not bee iterated. Thus in one and the selfesame worke you see S. Austen auouching it to be a Tradition not written, and yet confirmed by manifest scriptures.

Phi.

I heare him say so, but I see not how it can be.

Theo.

You will not, for feare you shoulde see your selues conuinced of an error, it is otherwise plaine e∣nough. The thing it selfe is not written, but receiued by Tradition, mary the grounds of it be so layd in the scriptures, that it may thence bee rightly conclu∣ded. The like we say for the baptisme of infants,* 1.307 the precept it selfe is not writ∣ten, nor any example of it in the scriptures, but it was deliuered vnto the church by tradition from the Apostles: mary it so dependeth on those principles of faith,

which bee written, that it may bee fairely deduced from them and fully proued by them.

Phi.

By Tradition onely, hee and other condemned Heluidius the heretike for deny∣ing the perpetual virginitie of our Lady.* 1.308

Theo.

Your stoare fayleth you when you flee from fayth and hope in GOD to examine Ioseph and Marie that you may picke out somewhat betweene them to impeache the perfection of the Scrip∣tures. That Christ was borne of a virgine vndefiled, is an high point of fayth and plainely testified in the Scriptures. That after the birth of her Sonne she was not knowen of her husband, is a reuerend and seemely truth preserued in the Church by witnesses woorthie to bee trusted, but no part of fayth neede∣full to bee recorded in the Scriptures.

Phi.

Saint Augustine sayth it is. * 1.309Integra fide credendum est, With an vpright fayth we must beleeue that bles∣sed Mary the mother of God and Christ was a virgin in conceiuing, a vir∣gin when she was deliuered, and remained a virgin after the birth of her sonne. And we must beware the blasphemie of Heluidius which sayde, shee was a virgin before, but not after the birth (of Christ.)

Theo.

Grate not on these thinges which were better to bee honoured with silence, than discussed with diligence. The booke which you bring is not S. Au∣gustines. It was found * 1.310vnder Tertullians name as wel as vnder Augustines, though Tertullian himselfe bee * 1.311 twise there noted for an heretike, and chalen∣ged the first time for that very error which S. Augustine in his true booke of heresies doeth acquite him from. And yet these wordes, Credendum est Mariam virginem concepisse, virginem genuisse, & post partum virginem permansisse, Wee must beleeue that the mother of Christ was a pure virgin when she concei∣ued, when shee brought forth his sonne, and after she was deliuered, do not touch your question as they are defended by S. Augustine in his vndoubted woorkes to bee part of our fayth, but onely that shee was a pure virgin after his birth,* 1.312 notwithstanding his birth. And therefore hee sayth, Quisi velper nascen∣tem corrumperetur eius integritas, iam non ille de virgine nasceretur. If Christes birth euen when hee was borne shoulde haue violated the virginitie of his mother,* 1.313 then had hee not beene borne of a virgin. So that as shee concei∣ued the Lorde, and was still a virgin, so shee was deliuered of him, and her selfe yet a virgin, that is, not onely without the knowledge of man, but also with∣out all hurt of her body: she remaining after shee was deliuered of her childe as perfect a virgin in body, as shee was before she conceiued him. And this to be the right meaning of those wordes, Post partum virgo permansit, shee remay∣ned a virgin after the birth of her child, when her virginitie must bee vrged for a poynt of fayth, the sermons extant vnder the name of S. Augustine do clearly confesse. * 1.314 Nec dubites Mariam virginem mansisse post partum, quia qualiter hoc factum sit, non humanus sermo, neque sensus potest comprehendere. Neuer doubt but Marie remained a virgin after the birth of her childe, although neither mans speach nor witte can comprehende howe it was done. And againe, Virgo cum parturit, virgo post partum. Vacuatur vterus, infans excipitur, nec tamen

virginitas violatur. Shee was a virgin when shee was deliuered, and a virgin after. She was deliuered, her child borne, and * 1.315 shee for all that a virgin. The like we find in sundry other of those sermons.

Phi.

But Heluidius was noted as an heretike by S. Augustine and others for saying that our Lady was knowen of Ioseph her husband after the birth of our Sauiour.

Theo.

The Fathers might reiect him as an heretike for his impudent abusing the Scriptures to build a falshoode vpon them which was not contained in them; and if they detested it as a rash and wicked slaunder for him against manifest trueth to blemish that chosen vessell which the holy Ghost had ouershadowed, and the son of God sanctified with his presence, we neither blame them, nor mislike their doings. But yet they neuer charged the Scrip∣tures with imperfection as you doe.

S. Hierome purposely writing against Heluidius vseth the fulnes of the Scriptures as his best argument to defend her virginitie. Vt haec quae scripta sunt non negamus,* 1.316 ita ea quae non sunt scripta renuimus. Natum esse Deum de Vir∣gine, credimus, quia legimus. Mariam Nupsisse post partum non credimus, quia non legimus. As we deny not those things which are written, so we reiect those things which are not written. That God was borne of a Virgine, wee beleeue, because we read. That (the same virgine) Mary became a wife after the birth of her son, we beleeue it not, because we read it not. S. Augustine alleageth Scripture for it,* 1.317 with what successe I will not iudge. If neither of these quiet your contentious spirits; our answer shalbe that when you make iust proofe that this is a poinct, not of trueth, which we graunt; but of faith, which you vrge; then will wee not faile to shewe it consequent to that which is written.

* 1.318You were wont to obiect other pointes of Religion as proued by traditi∣on and not by Scripture: amongest which you set the Godhead of the holy Ghost and his proceeding from the Father and the Sonne: But I trust by this time you be either stilled in them or ashamed of them.

Phi.

Not so neither. For * 1.319As we acknowledge this article to be most true, so we are sure you haue no expresse Scripture for it.

Theo.

Are you well aduised, when to spite vs, you teach the people, that the highest mysteries of their faith cannot be warranted by the Scriptures? Perceaue you not what a wrong it is to the spirite of GOD to holde his Diuinitie by Tradition, and not by the word of God? What ignorance is this, if it be no worse, to say that* 1.320 Athanasius, Dydimus, Basil, Nazianzen, Ambrose, Cyril and Augustine in their special Treaties of this very point haue alleaged no Scriptures to confirme the Godhead of the Holy Ghost?

Phi.

We speake not of them but of you.

Theo.

As if in a common case of faith the Scriptures were not common to vs with them. If they had Scriptures for it, we haue; if we haue none, than had they none.

Phi.

Expresse Scripture they had none.

Theo.

Doe you plaie with idle

wordes in so weightie matters of Christian faith?* 1.321 Euident and plaine scrip∣tures they had where the holy Ghost was called God: what is expresse Scrip∣ture if that be not?

Phi.

They had no such scripture.

Theo.

Had they not? Turne your booke a little better, you shall find they had. a 1.322 Glorificate Deum & portate in corpore vestro. Quem Deum nisi spiritum sanctum cuius corpora nostra dixerat esse Templum? Glorifie God, saith the Apostle, and beare him in your bodie. What God but the Holy ghost whose Temple before he called our bodies? And againe, b 1.323 When (Peter) had said, durst thou make a lie to the holy Ghost? (Ananias) thinking he had lied vnto men, Peter sheweth the Holy Ghost to be God by and by adding, thou hast not lied vnto men but vnto God. These two places the same father vrgeth against the Arrians as very plain scriptures. c 1.324Glorificate ergo Deum in corpore vestro. Vbi * 1.325 dilucidè ostendit Deum esse spiri∣tum sanctum, glorificandum scilicet in corpore nostro. Et quod Ananiae dixit Petrus Apostolus: Ausus es mentiri spiritui sancto? Atque ostendens Deum esse spiritum sanctum, non es, inquit, hominibus mentitus, sed Deo. Glorifie there∣fore God in your body, saieth Paul. Where very manifestly hee sheweth the holy Ghost to bee God which must be glorified in our body as in his Temple. And that which Peter the Apostle saide to Ananias: Durst thou lie vnto the holy Ghost? And declaring the holy Ghost to be God, thou hast not lied vnto men, saith he, but vnto God.

Ambrose taketh them for euident scriptures.* 1.326 Quod praemiserit Spiritum & addiderit, non es mentitus hominibus sed Deo, necesse est in spiritu sancto vt vnitatem diuinitatis esse intelligas. * 1.327 Nec solum in hoc loco euidenter sancti spiri∣tus 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, id est, diuinitatem Scriptura testatur, sed etiam ipse Dominus dixit in Euangelio quod Deus spiritus est. In that (Peter) first named the Spirite, and pre∣sently saide, thou hast lied not vnto men but vnto God, wee can not choose but vnderstand the holy Ghost to be God. Neither in this place only doth the Scripture euidently witnesse the Godhead of the holy Ghost, but also in the Gospel the Lord himselfe saith that the spirite is God.

Nazianzen saith these and such like be expresse scriptures, and that if you doubt thereof, you be very grosse headed.* 1.328 They which knewe the only blasphemie which is vttered against the Spirite to be irremissible, and gaue Ananias and Saphira that horrible reproche for lying vnto the holy Ghost,* 1.329 what doe they seeme to thee, openly to professe the Spirite to be God or no? How dull headed art thou, and without al sense of the spirite, if thou doubt thereof or needest farther teaching? By so many names, so forcible and expresly recorded in the Scriptures the holy Ghost is called: Amongst those expresse names numbring this for one of the chiefest and clearest, that the holy Ghost was called God, as the words before directly witnesse.

Phi.

His proceeding from the Father and the sonne cannot bee proued by scripture, though his Godhead may.

Theo.

How then came it first to be beleeued, by Tradition or by scripture?

Phi.

Certeinly not by scripture.

Theo.

Your tongues be so vsed to vntruthes, that your certainties be litle worth: the

Church of Christ receiued her faith concerning the proceeding of the Holy Ghost from the father and the sonne, not by Tradition, but by scripture. Saint Augustine saith, * 1.330Firmely beleeue and no whit doubt the same holy Ghost which is one Spirit of the Father and the Sonne, to proceede both from the Father and the Sonne. For the Sonne saith, when the spirit of trueth cōmeth which proceedeth from the father. Where he teacheth vs the spirit to be his also because himselfe is trueth. And that the holy ghost proceedeth likewise from the sonne, the * 1.331 doctrine of the Prophets and Apostles doeth deliuer vnto vs. For Esay sayth of the sonne, Hee shall strike the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the spirit of his lippes, he shal slea the wicked. Of whom the Apostle also sayth, Whom the Lord Iesus shall slea with the spirit of his mouth. Whome the onely Sonne of God, declaring to bee the Spirite of his mouth, breathing on his Disciples after his resurrection sayth; receiue ye the holy Ghost. And Iohn in his Reuelation sayth that out of the mouth of the Lorde Iesu him-selfe there proceeded a sharpe two edged swoorde. Hee therefore is the Spirit of his mouth, hee is the sword which proceedeth out of his mouth.

* 1.332And againe: By many testimonies of the diuine Scriptures it is prooued that he is the spirite of the father and the sonne, which is properly called in the Trinitie the holy ghost. And that he proceedeth from both it is thus pro∣ued: because the sonne himselfe saith (the spirit of trueth) proceedeth from the father. And when he was risen from death and appeared to his disciples, he breathed on them and sayd, Receiue ye the holy ghost, to shewe that the spirit proceeded from him also. And that (spirit) is the vertue which came from him, as we read in the gospel, and healed all men. What you thinke of these places we know not, but sure we are S. Augustine himselfe sayth of these & the like,* 1.333 Cum per Scripturarum sanctarum testimonia docuissem, de vtroque proce∣dere Spiritum sanctum: When I had shewed by the testimonies of the Holy scriptures that the holy ghost proceedeth frō both, (the father & the sonne.) And if it bee the naturall and distinct proprietie of the Spirite to proceede, as it is of the sonne to bee begotten, which I winne you will not denie, then is it as euident by the Scriptures that the holy Ghost proceedeth from the Father and the sonne,* 1.334 as it is that the sonne was begotten of the father. For as the se∣cond person in Trinitie was begotten of him whose sonne hee is, so the thirde Person proceeded from them whose spirite hee is, but hee is the Spirite of them both as the Scriptures expressely witnes, Ergo hee proceeded from them both.

Phi.

The doctrine is true, but the scripture is not expresse.

Theo.

What meane you by your expresse scripture?

Phi.

Those very woordes, He procee∣deth from them both are not found in the scriptures.

Theo.

Alas good Sirs, is that your quarrell? Doe the scriptures, I pray you, consist in spelling or in vnderstanding? Neuer read you what S. Hierom sayth? a 1.335 Nec putemus in ver∣bis Scripturarū Euangelium esse, sed in sensu: non in superficie, sed in medulla: non in

sermonum folijs, sed in radice rationis.* 1.336 Let vs not thinke the Gospell to lie in the words of the scriptures▪ but in the sense: not in the rind, but in the pith: not in the leaues of speech, but in the ground of reason (& truth.) If by expresse scrip∣ture you meane the plaine & 〈◊〉〈◊〉 sense of the word of God, we haue euident & infallible proofes thence for the proceeding of the holy ghost from the father & the sonne: But if you sticke on the syllables & letters which we speake, you doe but wrangle with vs, as the Arias did with the Nicene fathers, Expostulating why the Bishops that met at Nice vsed these words, substance & consubstā∣tial, which were nowhere found in the Scriptures b 1.337 & our answere to you shalbe the same that theirs was to them. c 1.338These words though they be not found in the Scriptures, yet haue they the same meaning and sense which the Scrip∣tures containe. And that we count to be expresse scripture. For otherwise as Hi∣larie saith, * 1.339 Al (heretiks) speake Scriptures without sense & * 1.340 the diuell himself, as Hierom no••eth, hath spoken some things out of the scriptures, but that as they both witnes in the very next words, f 1.341 The scriptures cōsist, not in reading, but in vnderstanding.

And yet I see no cause why this point should be denied to be expresse Scrip∣ture, for so much as S. Iohn describing the son of God with a sharpe two edged ••word g 1.342 proceeding out of his mouth (which is the * 1.343 rod of his mouth where∣with he shal smite the earth, & the spirit of his lips wherewith hee shall slea the wicked as Esay prophesied hee should, and Paul declareth hee would) vseth the very same word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 twise, which our Sauior before spake of his father 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the spirit, which proceedeth frō the father. So that you were fouly ouerseene, when you obiected this point of our christian faith as wan∣ting expresse scripture.

Phi.

If you take not only the words but also the sense ••or scripture, we will not greatly gainesay but all points of faith may be deriued out of these words,* 1.344 or out of the sense of that which is written.

The.

Deriued as you do pardōs, pilgri∣mages, penāces & purgatory? But we say that al points of faith must be plainly concluded, or necessarily collected by that which is writtē. And for our so saying we haue not only the scriptures & fathers, but also your selues, which being so often required & vrged to shewe what one point of faith the primatiue church of Christ beleeued w^tout the scriptures, could neuer shew any.

Phi.

We could shew many if that needed & we wer disposed.

The.

I know not what accōpt you make of it; but to our simple conceiuing it is the groundwork of al religiō, & crazeth y^e very heart of your vnwritten verities. And if to satisfie the people of God & dis∣burden your selues of an errour, you be not all this while disposed to doe what you can, we must leaue you for curious and daintie men, and thinke you can not.

Phi.

Tertullian was of that minde that we are, when he willed the christians not to appeale to the scriptures for the triall of their faith. His words are, Ergo non est ad scripturas prouocandum nec in ijs constituendum certamen,* 1.345 in quibus aut nulla aut incerta victoria est. We must therefore not appeale to the Scriptures,

nor place the trial of our cause in those (writings) in which the victorie is ei∣ther none or not sure.

Theo.

You do both the truth and Tertullian wrong. Ter∣tulliā doth not say that in matters of faith some things should be beleeued w^tout the Scriptures;* 1.346 no man is flatter against that than Tertullian in this very booke which you bring: but he would not haue the heretikes of his time chalen∣ged nor brought to the Scriptures, because they receiued not the books as they lay, but with such additions, alterations & expositions as they listed. And this he maketh to be the very reason of his Rule, in the wordes that go next before it.

The conference with them in the Scriptures can doe no good: but either to stirre a mans stomacke,* 1.347 or disquiet his braine. This brood (of heretikes) receiue not certaine Scriptures, and if they receaue any, they frame them to their purpose with adding and taking from them: & those that they receiue, they receaue them not whole, and if they suffer them to stand whole they marre them with their forged expositions. Their adulterating of the sense hurteth the trueth as much as their mayming of the sentences. Diuers pre∣sumptions holde them from acknowledging the (places) by which they be conuinced: they rest on those which they haue falsely corrupted, & ambigu∣ously wrested. Thou shalt loose nothing but thy voice in striuing with them, thou shalt gaine nothing but the mouing of thy choler to heare them blaspheme. And shewing that the hearers get lesse by such contentions, he in∣ferreth, Ergo non ad scripturas prouocandum est, we must therefore not prouoke (them) to the scriptures nor appoint there the conflict (with them) where the victory is none, or not sure, or skant sure enough.

Ireneus not long before him gaue the like report of thē, for they both had to do with the selfsame sorts & routs of heretiks.* 1.348 Whē they are reproued by the scri∣ptures, they find fault with the scriptures thēselues, as though many things were amis in them, & the books of no autoritie & doutfully written, & truth could not be had out of them if a man be ignorant of Tradition. And a∣gaine when we vrge them to come to that Tradition which is kept in the Churches down from the Apostles by the successions of Bishops, they vse to say, that they, as wiser not only than the Priests, but also than the Apostles, haue found out the sincere trueth, and that the Apostles did mingle certaine points of the law with the wordes of our Sauiour,* 1.349 & not the Apostles alone but Christ himselfe speak (somtimes earthly, somtimes heauenly, somtimes mixely) but they vndoubtedly, in defiledly & sincerely know the hidden my∣sterie. The which is nothing els but most impudently to blaspheme their maker. And so it commeth to passe that they acknowledge neither the Scriptures, nor Tradition. Such they be with whom we deale.

What maruell then if Tertullian gaue counsell that such heretikes should not be prouoked to the Scriptures,* 1.350 not that the Scriptures be defectiue in matters of faith, but for that the sectaries of his time denied, corrupted and maimed the Scriptures: and in deede no victorie can be hoped out of Scrip∣tures where they be neither receiued nor reuerenced as scriptures. And there∣fore

Tetrullian had good cause to speake these words, in respect of the persons y^t were thus impudent, not in respect of the scriptures, as if they were vnsufficiēt. That error of all others Tertullian was farthest from, & no where farther than in this very place which you quote. Aliunde scilicet loqui possent de rebus fidei nisi ex literis fidei.* 1.351 As though they could speake touching matters of faith out of any other than out of the books of faith. And obiecting to thē this very point which we now striue for: Sed credant sine scripturis, vt credant aduersus scripturas, Let (heretiks,) saith he,* 1.352 beleeue without Scriptures, that they may beleeue a∣gainst the scriptures. To beleeue without scriptures, is heretical as well as to beleeue against the scriptures,* 1.353 & the next step vnto it as Tertul. here placeth thē: & therefore defend not the 1. lest you fal to the 2. which is the ruine of all religiō.

Phil.

S. Basill is plaine with vs if Tertul. be not: Of the doctrines which are taught in the Church, we haue some laid down in writing, some againe we haue receaued by traditiō frō the Apostles in a mystery, that is in secret. Whereof either hath like force to godlines, neither doth any man contradict them that is but meanly acquainted with the lawes of the church. For if we goe about to reiect those customes which are not written as of no moment, before we be ware we shal condemn those things which * 1.354 are in the Gospel necessarie to saluation, yea rather we shal bring the preaching of faith to a naked name. And not long after in the same booke, If nothing els hath beene receiued without scriptures, neither let this be receiued: but if we haue re∣ceiued many secrets without writing,* 1.355 let vs also receiue this amongst those many. I thinke it Apostolike to cleaue to traditions not written.

Theo.

The booke which you alleage hath S. Basils name to it, but the later part thereof whence those patches are taken, haue neither S. Basils stile, lear∣ning, spirite, nor age; which Erasmus perceiued and confessed when he transla∣ted the book. After I was past halfe the work, saith he, without wearines, the phrase seemed to declare an other writer and to sauour of an other spirite: somtimes the stile swelled as vnto the loftines of a trage••ie, somtimes it cal∣med euen vnto a common kind of speach. Many times there appeared some vanitie in the author, as it were shewing that he had learned Aristotles predi∣camēts & Porphiries 5. predicables. Besides he digressed very oftē frō the pur∣pose & returned vnhandsomly. Last of al many things seemed to be here & ther added, which made litle to the matter in questiō. And some things, such as by their face shew their father, to wit, the same that hath interlaced the most lerned books of Athan. cōcerning the holy ghost, with his babling but trifling cōceits.

Phi.

We care not for Erasm. iudgemēt.

The.

You must care for Erasmus reasons, vnles you cā disproue thē.

Phi.

How proue you these places to be those that Erasm. meaneth?

The.

If Erasmus had said nothing these places betray themselues. Looke to the beginning & ending of your first allegation, & you shall see that the middle fitteth them as well as ••atemeale doeth oysters. The wordes next before are these, It remaineth that we speake of the syllable, with, whence it came, what force it hath, and how farre it agreeth with

the Scriptures.* 1.356 Then your forger as a man suddainly rauished & vtterly forget∣ting what he purposed, entereth a vaine discourse of thre••skore & fifteene lines cleane besides the matter, not so much as once mentioning that which hee first promised; and endeth in a worse maze than be beganne, with a conclusion more dissident from the middle, than the middle was from the preface: Dictum est igitur eādem esse vim vtrius{que} proloquij.* 1.357 So then we haue shewed that both pro∣positions haue the same sense: wherof he spake not one word in all that large discourse that went before. And so he solemnly proposeth one thing, digresseth abruptly to an other, and concludeth absurdly with a third, which ouersight in any bore were not sufferable.* 1.358

* 1.359Your later allegation is groūded on the former, & conuinceth your author to be but a yong father in respect of S. Basil. For where S. Basil died before Me∣letius, your bastard Basil rehearseth Meletius as a Bishop of ancient memorie dead long before his time.* 1.360 In super & Meletiū illū admirandū in eadē fuisse senten∣tia narrant qui cū illo vixerunt. Sed quid opus est vetera cōmemorare? Immo nūc qui sunt Orientales, Moreouer Meletius that admirable (Bishop) was of the same opinion, as they that liued with him report. But what neede I repeate aun∣cient times? The East Bishops which are at this day, &c. Now the true S. Basill not onely liued at the same time with Meletius, but was a 1.361made Deacon by him, and wrate b 1.362 many letters to him, and departed this life before him, as the church storie witnesseth, affirming that Helladius, S. Basils successour and Meletius were both present at the second general councell at Constantinople vnder Theodosius,c 1.363 and that must needes be when S. Basill was dead.

Phi.

You did wel to discredit the place: it were otherwise able to ouerthrowe all your new doctrine.* 1.364

Theo.

Then you do not well to build the antiquitie of your religion on this and such other apparent forgeries; but were the places not forged, they could do you no such seruice as you spake of, in the question which we now handle: yea rather they confirme that which we affirme, that Things necessary to saluation are (comprised) in the Gospell.

Phi.

Many traditions were receiued from the Apostles without writing, which are not in the Gospel.

Theo.

You must also proue those traditions to be necessary to saluation before you can conclude out of this place any thing against our assertiō.

Phi.

As though the Apostles deliuered thinges which were not necessary to saluation.

Theo.

The christian faith they deliuered in writing: the rest they left vnwritten, be∣cause those things which were no parts of faith, were deliuered to the church of Christ for decency, not for necessity.* 1.365

Phi.

For decency? what a cauill that is?

Theo.

The Traditions which your counterfet Basill here rehearseth as descending from the Apostles are no such deepe mysteries of religion as he pretendeth. That the people should euery sun∣day and likewise betweene Easter and Whitsuntide pray standing, is that any point of faith or help to saue their soules? The words of inuocatiō at the Lords supper, & the praiers before & after, which the Greeke church vsed, haue you not long since left them, or to say the trueth, did you euer accept them

for catholike? Singing with the crosse, turning to the East, thrise dipping him that is baptized, and annointing him after with oyle, bee these essentiall parts of Baptisme, or rather externall Rites declaring the power and vertue of that Sacrament? Your author himselfe will tell you, they be not within the compasse of that faith which is common to all Christiās, and must be rightly beleeued of all that will be saued. For shewing the cause why they might not be written,* 1.366 What things, saith he, such as were not baptized might not behold, how could it be fit they should be publikely caried about in writing? And againe, The Apostles and fathers which prescribed certaine rites in the first beginning of the church, reserued to these mysteries their dignitie by si∣lence and secrecie. For it is * 1.367 no mysterie, which is open to the eares of the people and vulgar sort. Now things necessary to saluatiō must openly be prea∣ched to the people and be fully conceiued of them, and stedfastly pro••essed by thē before they can be saued. These things therefore be not of that sort, but are ra∣ther excluded from necessitie, because they were deliuered vnder secrecie.

Phi.

But S. Basil or whosoeuer he be that wrote that booke, saith, vtraque parem vim habent ad pietatem:* 1.368 Things vnwritten haue equal force to godlines with things written.* 1.369

Theo.

He saith not that all things vnwritten, but, vtra∣que both sortes haue like force to godlines, not that dumbe ceremonies or out∣ward gestures haue equall force with the word of God to lighten the minde, con∣uert the soule, and clense the heart, it were arrogant blasphemie so to say: but a∣mongst things vnwritten he numbreth the praiers of the church proportioned by the word▪ and hauing in them the very contents of the worde, and also the Creede and profession of the faith it selfe, whereby wee beleeue in the Father, the Sonne and the holy ghost, in truth & godlinesse equiualent with the scrip∣tures and in substaunce the very same that is witnessed by the scriptures: Both these your Author in that place counteth for things vnwritten, and these wee graunt haue equall force to godlinesse with those things that are written.* 1.370

Phi.

In effect they be all one with those things that are writte••.

Theo.

That maketh his spe••ch the truer, which otherwise were absurd and vngodly.

Phi.

Is it not a w••lie shift, that sometimes you will admit no traditions, and at other times when you bee hardly pressed, fayth, scriptures and all shall bee traditions with you?

Theo.

Is it not a wilier, that hauing framed to your selues a religion without the scriptures, you woulde nowe fortifie the same by tradition against the scriptures? But, you may not so preuaile. Wee haue the warrant of Saint Paul and the catholike consent of Christes Church, that our faith shoulde depende on the word of God: and since God speaketh not now but in his scriptures, it is euident that our fayth in all pointes must bee dire∣cted and ruled by the scriptures. Stand not brabling with vs about the worde Tradition which is very doubtfull, and diuersely taken amongest the fathers: Bring some faire and true demonstration for that which you holde, as reason is you should, to counterp••i••e so many proofes in a matter of such importance, or else admit our assertion to be true.

Philand.

* 1.371That wee can doe, and yet not hurte our cause.

Theophil.

Wee knowe you can doe much. You can bouldly call your selues catho∣likes, though you bee vnshamefast heretikes: and tell the people you teach nothing but antiquitie, when the chiefest pointes of your religion bee meere nouelties and barbarous absurdityes.

Philand.

You can exemplifie a lye the best that euer I hearde.

Theophil.

Keepe that praise as proper to your selfe, I will not disturbe your profession. Tou∣ching the matter in question whether I speake ought that is vntrue, let the reader iudge.

You will haue your religion and doctrine to bee Catholike: that is, confirmed by the Scriptures, and professed in all places, of all per∣sons, at all tymes, euen from the first beginning wheresoeuer the Church of Christ hath beene receiued. And when wee come to see the specia∣lities, wee finde you to swarue not onely from the sacred Scriptures and auncient Fathers, but euen from those later ages and Churches which you woulde seeme to followe; and to haue gotten you a religion of your owne without Councell, Canon; antiquitie, or Authoritie to witnesse the same.

For example; the worshipping and adoring of Christes Image with diuine honour,* 1.372 concluded in your Schooles and practised in your churches, is it not a wicked and blasphemous inuention of your owne, against all Synodes and Fathers, Greeke and Latine, olde and newe, that euer as∣sembled or taught in the church of God, besides your selues? The seconde Nicene Councell, which first beganne that pernicious pastime of saluting and kissing Images, did they not in plaine wordes condemne this errour of yours, when they saide: * 1.373 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 vni Deo tribuimus: diuine honour wee giue to God alone, and not to images? And againe, * 1.374 I receiue and imbrace reuerent images: but the adoration which is doone with di∣uine honor, called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, I reserue to the supersubstantiall and quick∣ning Trinity onely, and to no image. Ionas Bishop of Orleans that wrote a∣gainst Claudius Bishop of Turin in the defence of images 50. yeares after the second Nicene councell, did hee not mightily detest your adoration of images, as a most heinous errour, and was not the whole church of Fraunce by his re∣port, of the same minde with him? Suffer, saith he, the images of the Sainctes & the histories of holy actions to be painted in the church, not that they shold be worshipped, but that they may be an ornament (to the place) and bring the simple to the remembraunce of thinges past. Creaturam verò adorari, etque aliquid diuinae seruitutis impendi, pro nefas ducimus, huiúsque scel••ris patratorem detestandum & anathematizandum libera voce proclamamus. But that any creature (or Image) should be adored, or haue any part of diuine honour wee count it a wickednesse, and with open voice pro∣claime the committer of that impiety (worthy) to bee detested and ac∣cursed.

And prouing by manifold authorities of scriptures and fathers that neither image neither any thing made with handes should be adored,* 1.375 he addeth: That which you say the worshippers of images answered you for the maintenāce of their error; (we think no diuinity to be in the image which we adore, but only in honor of the person whose image it is, we worship it with such vene∣ration:) that (answere of theirs) we reproue & detest as wel as you: & because they do know, there is no diuine thing in the image, they be the more blame worthie for bestowing diuine honor on a weake & beggarly Image, the self same answere many of the East (church) entangled with this hainous error giue to such as rebuke thē:* 1.376 the Lord of his mercy grāt, that yet at lēgth both these and those may bee drawen from this superstition (of theirs.) Fraunce * 1.377 hath Images and suffereth them to stand for the causes which I before rehearsed: but they count it a * 1.378 great detestation & abomination to haue them adored.* 1.379

In this opinion stoode the west Churches a long time, till your schoolemen started vp, and ouer-ruled Religion with their sophisticall distinctions and so∣lutions: and they keeping the wordes of the later Nicene Councell, and not marking their drift, controled that which they concluded and brought in a lewd∣er and wickeder kind of adoring of Images with the same honor that is due to the Principall.

The chiefe actor in this was your glorious Sainct and Clerke, as you cal him, Thomas Aquin, who reiecting all that was decreed at Nice inferred against them, that no reuerence could be exhibited to the Image of Christ, in that it was a thing grauen or painted, because reuerence is due to none but to a reasonable creature: and alleaging Aristotles authoritie, that the motion to the Image and originall is all one, he resolueth in these wordes, Cum Christus adoretur adoratione latriae,* 1.380 consequens est quod eius imago sit adoratione latriae ado∣randa. Since then Christ is adored with diuine honour, it followeth that his Image must likewise be adored with the self-same * 1.381 diuine honour.

Bonauenture an other of your Romish Sainctes, canonized by Sixtus the fourth, goeth after Thomas with full saile. Quin Imago Christi introducta est ad repraesentandum eum,* 1.382 qui pro nobis Crucifixus est, nec affert se nobis pro se sed pro illo, ideo omnis reuerentia, quae ei offertur exhibitur Christo: & propterea Imagini Christi debet cultus latriae exhiberi. Whereas the Image of Christ repre∣senteth him that was crucified for vs, and offereth it selfe vnto vs, not for it self, but for him; in that respect all the reuerence which is giuen to it is done to Christ: and therefore the Image of Christ must be honored with diuine adoration. * 1.383Holcote and * 1.384Gerson somwhat disliked this assertion and dispu∣ted against it, but the pronesse of the people to follow such fancies, & the gree∣dines of Priestes and other religious persons to keepe and increase their offe∣rings, and the credite of Thomas, his learning, Sainctship and sectaries bare such a sway in the Church of Rome, that the rest coulde not bee regarded nor heard; and so the common opinion and resolution of your Churches and

schooles,* 1.385 as the fortresse of your faith confesseth, was that the image of Christ should be worshipped with diuine honor, wh••ch you would faine shrinke from in our dayes, the doctrine being both strange and wicked, if you could tell howe, but that the wordes are so plaine that no pretence can colour them.

Your schoole doctrine therefore of adoring images with diuine honour, not onely prohibited by the law of God, and abhorred of all ancient and Catholike fathers; but euen renounced in the second Nicene councell, as repugnant to truth, and shunned in the West church for a thowsande yeares after Christ and vpwarde as a most wicked errour, howe coulde it on the suddaine with a sillie distinction of sundrie respectes become catholike? what greater wickednes can there be than to giue the honor of God to stockes and stones, and to say you do it not in regard of the matter, but of the resemblance which the image hath to the originall? as though it could be an image vnlesse it had some resemblance, ei∣ther in deed or in our opinion, to the thing it selfe? or man were not a truer & better image of God, and yet in no respect to be adored with diuine honor? or as if God prohibiting all images made with hands to be adored,* 1.386 had not included as well their resemblance as their matter? Why may not any Pagan by this e∣uasion worship what creature he will, & say he beholdeth & honoreth in it not the matter, but the wisedome & power of the Creator? And what other conceit is this, than that which the Iewish & heathenish Idolaters, when they were repro∣ued, answered; that they adored not the thinges, which they saw but conueied their adoration by the image to him that was inuisible? If such prophane specu∣lations may be suffered in Gods cause, wee may soone delude all that GOD hath commanded with one respect or other.

The determination of the second Nicene councell that images were louing∣ly to be saluted, imbraced & kissed (for so thēselues expound the word Adoratiō which they vse) was lesse pernicious than the former, as tending rather to super∣stitious follie,* 1.387 than to that sacrilegious impietie which after raigned in your schooles: and yet that decision of theirs was nothing lesse than catholike; no councell or father before them for the space of 790. yeares euer decreeing or de∣fending any such thing in the church of God: and the Bishops of England, Ger∣many, France and Spaine forthwith contradicting & confuting their presum∣ption as vncatholike: and your own schooles reuersing their assertion as voide of all truth, for that no reasonlesse creature is capable of reuerence, which yet that councell had allowed vnto images.

Painting of stories in the church is somwhat ancient,* 1.388 but neither Apost••lik, nor catholike. It was receiued in some places, vpon priuate mens affections, as an ornament for their churches, but vsed as altogither indifferent, that is, vr∣ged on no man as a matter of religiō: & not only the whole church some hūdreth yeares after Christ (which yet was catholike) wanted all such pictures: but learned and godly Bishops without any suspition of e••rour or innouation tra∣duced and repelled such paintings, as things either superfluous or dangerous, or both.

What accompt the councel of Eliberis, Eusebius, Epiphanius, and Augu∣stine made of pictures,* 1.389 you heard before: how Chrysostom, Amphilochius, Asterius, and others esteemed them, you may read in your owne books of Coun∣cels: where the wicked & superstitious vpholders of Images refute the Coūcel of Constantinople, but with shyfting & lying most fit for the cause they tooke in hand.

To Epiphanius exhorting the Emperour not to bring Images into the Church, no nor to tolerate them in priuate howsen, & adding this reason, non enim fas est Christianum per oculos suspensum teneri, sed per occupationem mentis, it is not lawful for a Christiā to stād gazing with his eies, but to haue his mind occupied; they answer that this epistle was forged in Epiphanius name, and that Epiphanius himself would neuer haue beene so bitter against Images. The first is easilie sayd, & the second is falsely supposed without any proofe; this epistle was auouched to be his in a Synod of 330. Bishops not lōg before: and Epiphanius is sharper against Images in his epistle to Iohn of Hierusalē which S. Hierom translated, than he was in this, which they disliked.

Eusebius dissuading the Empresse from regarding the painted Image of Christ with these words,* 1.390 Quis igitur gloriae eiusmodi & dignitatis splendores lucen∣tes & fulgurantes, effigiare mortuis & inanimatis coloribus & vmbratili pictura posset? who can resemble in deed and lifelesse colours, & with the shadow of a picture the shyning & glittering brightnes (of Christes) glorie and digni∣tie, is reiected as an heretike and condemned by those that liued many hundred yeres after him,* 1.391 and were in credite or learning no way comparable to him.

Chrysostomes assertion, Nos per scripta sanctorum fruimur praesentia, non sane corporū ipsorū sed animarū Imagines habentes; we by writing enioy the presence of the sainctes, not hauing any Images of their bodies, but of their mindes: Amphilochius protestation, Non enim nobis sanctorum corporales vultus in tabulis coloribus effigiare curae est,* 1.392 quoniam hijs opus non habemus: we haue no care to re∣semble in colours the bodilie visages of the saincts, because we haue no neede of them: and Asterius admonition, Ne pingas Christum in vestibus, sed magis sumptu illo & impensis pauperibus subueni: paint not Christ in clothes (or colours) but rather relieue the poore with that expēce & charge:* 1.393 they auoide as spoken by way of comparison, & not of illation, as if mē in their comparisons did not speake truth, & affirme both partes as well as in their conclusions. This was the skill & esming of your late Nicene Synod to crie corruption on others when they themselues were most corrupt, and with a shyft of words to decree that as Catholike which was repugnāt to the plaine precepts of God & general iudgement of their forefathers in all ages and places before them.

For our parts we say with Origen,* 1.394 Non igitur fieri id poterit vt & Deum quis nouerit & simulachris vt supplicet. It can not be that a man should knowe God and bow him self to images: and with Austen, * 1.395 Let it be no Religion of ours to worship the workes of mens hands; because the workmen that make them are the better (of the twaine) whom yet we may not worship.

The Law of God is so direct, forbidding vs to bow to any Image, similitude or likenes of any thing, that no distinction can help you.* 1.396 Notāda proprietas: Deos co∣li, Imaginē adorari; quorum vtrūque, seruis Dei non conuenit. Note sayth S. Hie∣rom the proprietie (of the speach,) Gods are worshipped, Images are ado∣red (or bowed vnto:) whereof neither is fit for the seruants of God.

If you trust not the ancient fathers, one of your own friends will tell you the same.* 1.397 Non adorabis, neque coles. Inter quae distingue. Non adorabis scilicet veneratio ne corporis, vt inclinando eis, vel genuslectendo. Non coles, scilicet affectione mentis. Ad adorandum igitur & colendum prohibitur Imagines fiers. Thou shalt not adore them, nor worship them. Which are thus to be distiguished. Thou shalt not adore them, that is with any bodilie reuerence, as bowing or kneeling to them. Thou shalt not worship them with any deuotion of mind. Images therefore are prohibited to bee either adored or worshipped. Thus your owne fellowes were not so blind but they perceiued the strength and force of Gods commaundement to be such, as we defend at this present against you.

And though he labor to shift off the matter with a rule of S. Augustine, that the honor passeth from the signe to the thing signified: yet he both missed himself,* 1.398 and misconstred his author. For S. Augustine in that place putteth a manifest bar against Images, and precisely & purposely excludeth them out of the number of signes which he meant to treat of, when he gaue this rule. His wordes are, Qui veneratur vtile signum diuinitus institutum, cuius vim significa∣tionem{que} intelligit,* 1.399 non hoc veneratur quod videtur, sed illud potius quo talia cuncta referenda sunt. He that reuerenceth a profitable signe ordayned by God, the force and signification whereof he well vnderstandeth, doth not renerence that which he seeth but rather that to which al such signes are to be referred.

* 1.400This rule reacheth to no signes, but to such as are ordained by Gods own in∣stitution, which Images are not, & therefore are cleane without the cōpas of S. Augustines speach. Again the veneration here touched, is not any worshipping or adoring the creatures which God vseth for signes, but a reuerent estimation & regard of them that they be not despised or abused although they be but signes. So that water in baptism and the creatures of breade and wine in the Lordes supper (which are the two examples here * 1.401 mentioned) are to be reuerenced as things that be sacred by the word and ordināce of God, but not to be adored and honored for the things themselues, whose signes they are; that were a miserable seruitude, or rather the right death of the soule, as Austen noteth. And that the first teachers of truth remoued al Images as vnprofitable signes to serue God with, the words before do plainly shew. For speaking of the difference between the Iewes and the Gentils when they should be conuerted vnto Christ, he saith, * 1.402Christiā liberty finding the Iewes vnder profitable signes (to wit the rites & Ceremonies of the Lawe) did interprete the meaning of them, and so by dire∣cting the people to the things themselues, deliuered them from the seruitude of the signes; but finding the Gentiles vnder * 1.403vnprofitable signes, (for that they * 1.404 worshipped Images either as Gods, or as the signes and resemblaunces

of Gods) * 1.405ipsa signa fru••trauit remouitque omnia, shee wholy remoued and frustrated the signes themselues, that is shee would not suffer them to serue the true God with any such signes as bodily shapes and Images were.

Your honouring of Images is reproued as you see and not releeued by S. Augustines Rule.* 1.406 And since the Lawe of God expressely and ••treitly char∣geth you not so much as to bowe your bodies or knees to the likenesse of any thing in heauen or earth, which is made with handes, consult your owne con∣sciences, whether you may with your respects frustrate, or with your routes ouerbeare the distinct and direct voice of God himselfe in his own Church. And if you be not giuen ouer into a reprobate sense, you wil say no. Now that which is against the Law of God can neither be Christian, nor Catholike: Your Doctrine therefore of bowing and kneeling to Images is repugnant both to the precepts of God, and to the generall & auncient resolution of Christs church: your adoring them with diuine honour is a sacrilegious and flagitious, as well noueltie as impietie.

Phi.

You must not looke that we should defend the sayings & doings of all that haue takē part with the church of Rome. If Thomas waded too far in wor∣shipping Images, if Gerson mistooke S. Augustine, if the later Councell of Nice denied or strained some of the ancient Fathers, you must not chalenge vs for their ouer••ightes.

The.

We chalenge you for vaunting your selues to be Ca∣tholikes when in deede you doe nothing but smooth and sleike the corruptions and inuentions of later ages against the right & ancient faith of Christs church.

The discent of Images with their adoration, how late it began, how often it varied, how far at length it swarued frō the Primatiue & original profession of the christiā & catholik faith; we haue spent somtime to examine. Let vs now ap∣proch to your praiers in a strāge toung,* 1.407 which haue a great deal lesse shew of ca∣tholicism thā images had, & yet are as egerly defended by you as images were.

Phi.

In the Latine toung we haue praiers, in a strange toung we haue none: you rather that haue turned scriptures, church seruice & secretes for your plea∣sures into the English tongue, make your praiers in a strange and vnwonted speach to catholik eares••

The.

To English mē the English toung is not strange.

Phi.

I know they vnderstand it, but I call it strange because they were not woont to haue the publike praiers of the Church in their mother toung.

Theo.

In cases of religion,* 1.408 we must respect, not what men haue, but what they should haue beene vsed to. Cyprian saith well, * 1.409 Consuetudo sine veritate, vetustas erroris est. Custome without trueth, is but the long continuance of error: & so Tertullian, * 1.410 Quodcunque aduersus veritatem sapit hoc erit haeresis, etiam vetus consuetudo. Whatsoeuer is against the trueth, it must bee counted heresie, though it be an old Custom. The Councell of Carthage where Cy∣prian was, resolued thu••: * 1.411 The Lord saith in the Gospel, I am trueth, he said not I am custom. Trueth therefore appearing let custom yeeld to truth.

Phi.

That councel erred in neglecting the old custom which the church obser∣ued.

Theo.

But yet their generall assertion, which I alleage, was so strong, that

S. Augustine saith to those very wordes:* 1.412 Plane respondeo, quis dubitet verita∣tis manifestae debere consuetudinem cedere? I plainly answere, who doubteth but that custom must yeeld to the trueth appearing?

Phi.

Neither doe we doubt of that, but how proue you this to be a manifest trueth, that the people of this Land must haue their diuine seruice in the English tongue?

Theo.

It is the manifest precept of him that said, I am trueth and witnessed in the Scripture which is the worde of trueth.* 1.413

Philan.

In what place there?

Theo.

Make not your selfe so great a stranger in the Scriptures, as if you knew not the place.

Phi.

You meane the 14. Chapter of the first epistle which S, Paul wrote to the Church of Corinth.

Theo.

I doe; what say you to it?

Phi.

Mary this we say,* 1.414 The reader may take a tast in this one point of your deceitfull dealing, abusing the simplicitie of the popular by peruerse application of Gods holy word, vpon some smale similitude & equiuocatiō of certaine termes, against the approued godly vse and trueth of the vniuersall Church, for the seruice in the Latine or Greeke tongue: which you ignorantly or rather wilfully pretend to be against this discourse of S. Paul touching strange tongues.

Theo.

And hee that marketh your shifting and facing in this one point, shall need no farther tast of your dea∣ling.

Phi.

If you like not that which we say, refel it.

Theo.

Can your selues tell what you say?

Phi.

You shall well find that when we come to the matter.

Theo.

First then heare what the Apostle saith, and after you shal haue leaue to say what you will.

* 1.415Instructing the Church of Corinth thus he saith, And now brethren if I come to you speaking with (strange) tongues what shall I profite you? If a trūpet giue an vncertaine sound, who wil prepare himself to the battel? So likewise you by the tongue except you vtter words of easie vnderstanding, how shal it be knowē what is spoken? For you shal speake in the aire. There are for example so many kindes of tongues in the worlde and none of them is without sound. Except I know the power (and signification) of the speach, I shall be to him that speaketh barbarous, and he that speaketh shall be bar∣barous to me. Wherefore let him that speaketh a (strange) tongue pray th••t he may interpret. For if I pray in a tongue (not vnderstood) my spirite prai∣eth, but mine vnderstanding is without fruit. What is it then? I wil pray with the spirit, but I wil pray with the vnderstanding also: I wil sing with the spi∣rit, but I will sing with the vnderstanding also. Els when thou blessest with the spirit, how shal he that occupieth the roume of the vnlearned say Amen, at thy giuing of thāks, seeing he knoweth not what thou saiest? Thou verilie giuest thanks wel but the other is not edified. I had rather in the Church to speak fiue words with mine vnderstanding tha•• I might also instruct others, thā ten thousand words in an vnknown toung. When ye come together, let al things be done to edification. If any man speake in an (vnknowen) tongue, let one interprete: but if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church: God is not the author of confusion but of peace: so (I teach) in al the Churches of the saintes. If any man seeme to be a Prophet or to be spiritu∣al,

let him vnderstand that the things which I write vnto you are the com∣maundemēts of the Lord. Thus farre S. Paul: which I rehearse at large, that it may lie for the ground of the whole dispute that shall follow. What answer you to this commaundement of God and doctrine of his Apostle?

Phi.

No one place of scripture, is more diuersly or easilie answered than this. First you & your trāslatiōs corrupt this chapter by putting your own words to y Apostles text. For where he sayth tōgue, you ad (strange, vnknowen, not vnder∣stood) which are not in S. Paul. Secōdly you * 1.416 misconster y^e whole passage of S. Paul: for by edifying y^• church, & vnderstanding the power of y^e voice, he meaneth not y bare significatiō of y^• words only, but the * 1.417 increase of fayth, true knowledge & goodlife: & in that sense we say, Our forefathers were as much edified w^t the latine seruice that is, as w••se, as faythful, as deuout, as fearful to breake Gods Lawes, & as likely to be saued as we are (with) all our tongues, translations and English praiers. Thirdly by strange tongues the Apostle meaneth not the Latin, Greeke, or Hebrew. Fourthly that he speaketh not of the Churches seruice is proued by inuincible argu∣ments. Fifthly the Catholike people are taught the contents of their praiers, and vn∣derstand euerie Ceremonie, & can behaue them selues accordingly. Sixtly it is not necessarie to vnderstand our prayers. Lastly the seruice hath been alwaies in Latin throughout the west Church. And to dispute thereof, as though it were not to be done, since the whole Church doth practise & obserue it throughout the wordle, is most in∣solent madnes, as S. Augustine saith in 118. epistle. I sawe by your lookes, you thought we could not answer it.

Theo.

I knew you had stoare of answers, such as they be: but from such interpreters God defend vs and all that be his.

Phi.

Speake to the matter, let the men alone.

Theoph.

Then to the matter; this is a right paterne of your Rhemish annotations stuffed with * 1.418 impertinent allegations and * 1.419 impudent sophistications, of purpose to defeate & frustrate the scriptures that are against you.

Phi.

You fall to railing, when you faint in reasoning.

Theo.

How can we but kindle whē we see you fray the people of God from the sweete & wholesom foode of their soules, and delude them with your huskes and hogwash?

Phi.

First discharge your selues of your shameful adding to the Scriptures,* 1.420 and then you may the better examine our answers.

Theoph.

To the text of the holie Ghost we adde not: onely for the better conceauing of the sense, in an other print we enterpose that speciall limitation of the word, tongue, which the drift of the whole chapter necessarily enforceth, which the Apostle himself directly expresseth, and the learned and anciēt fathers expounding this place doe euerywhere insert as the right construction of the scripture.

S. Paul did not speake either of tongues in generall, or of such tongues as were knowen and well vnderstoode of the Corinthians;* 1.421 nothing can be more absurd nor more against sense and nature thā so to applie the Apostles reasons, but of such tongues as were vnknowen and not vnderstood of the hearers, and in that case his assertions are verie true and his illations very strong, which otherwise are ridiculous, if not monsterous. For who well in his wits

will make the Apostle speake so falsly and absurdly as to say, He that speaketh a (knowne) tongue, speaketh not vnto men, but vnto God: If I come to you, speaking with (knowne) tongues, what shall I profite you? He that speaketh a (knowne) language edifieth (but) himselfe: when thou blessest with the spirit (and in a knowne tongue) howe shall hee that is vnlearned say, Amen?* 1.422 These speaches haue neither ryme nor reason in them; but turne them to the cō∣trary and limit them to an vnknowne tongue, and then they be very substantiall and sensible assertions.

And so S. Paul in that chapter very often expoundeth himselfe.* 1.423 For these be his owne additions, * 1.424 Howe shal it be vnderstoode what is spoken? * 1.425 Except I knowe the power of the speach I shal bee barbarous to him that speaketh. * 1.426 He knoweth not what thou saiest. And citing a place of the Prophet Esay to confirme his intent he saith, by men of other tongues and of other languages will I speake to this people. What is an other tongue and another language but in manifest termes, a strange tongue and a strange language?

* 1.427Chrysostom and Ambrose commenting vpon this chapter deliuer S. Pauls minde in those very words which we do. Si peregrina lingua gratias agas: If thou giue thanks in a STRANGE tongue, saith Chrysostome, the common man can not answere Amen. And speaking in S. Pauls person, * 1.428 Linguas inutiles esse dico, quantisper sint ignotae: I say tongues are vnprofitable so long as they are VNKNOWNE. * 1.429 Nam quae vtilitas ex voce non intellecta potest esse? For what pro∣fit can there come by a speach that is NOT VNDERSTOOD? Ambrose like wise, Hoc est quod dicit, qui loquitur incognita lingua, Deo loquitur. This is it the A∣postle saith, he that speaketh in AN VNKNOWNE TOVNG, speaketh vnto God and not vnto men. And againe, * 1.430 Docere nemo poterit, nisi intelligatur. No man can instruct, except he be vnderstood. And therefore the Apostle * 1.431 war∣neth, saith he, that they should not seeme barbarous ech to other by AN VN∣KNOWN TOVNG. * 1.432 Non competit fidelibus audire linguas quas non intelligunt, sed infidelibus. It is not for the faithful to heare tongues which they vnderstand not, but for infidels. Qui loquitur linqua] subaudis incognita & peregrina. He that speaketh with a tongue) thou must vnderstand, saith Haymo, an vnknowne and strange tongue. And againe, * 1.433 Si orem lingua] subaudis incognita. If I pray with a tongue) to wit, an vnknowne tongue, the vnderstanding of my soule is without any profit, because I vnderstand not what I speake. And so S. Au∣gustin disputing of this place saith, * 1.434 Quia lingua, id est membro corporis quod mo∣nemus in ore cum loquimur, signa vti{que} rerum dantur, non res ipsae proferuntur, propte∣rea translato verbo linguam appellauit quālibet signorum prolationem priusquā intel∣ligantur. Because by the toung, I mean that part of the body which we moue in our mouthes when we speak, the signes of things are deliuered & not the things themselues, therefore (the Apostle to the Corinthes) by a kind of tran∣slation calleth any vttering of signes (or words) * 1.435 before they be vnderstood, a toungue

Phi.

In deed S. Paul speaketh of tongues not vnderstood when he saith they

neither profite nor edifie: but hee that thinketh S. Paul speaking of edification of mans mind or vnderstanding,* 1.436 meaneth the vnderstanding of the words onely, is fouly deceiued. For what is a child of fiue or six yeres old edified or increased in knowledge by his Pater noster in english? It is the sense therefore which euery man can not haue nei∣ther in English nor latin, the knowledge whereof properly and rightly edifieth to instru∣ction: and the knowledge of the words only often edifieth neuer a whit, & somtimes buil∣deth to error & destructiō: as it is plain in al heretikes & many curious pe••sons besides.

Phi.

As we should shewe our selues to be mad, if we should say that Eng∣lish prayers doe edifie children before they come to the yeares of discretion,* 1.437 or that the very hearing of their mother tongue doth sufficiently instruct English men, though the sense of that which is spoken be neuer so darke, obscure, para∣bolicall, and mysticall: for then we shoulde crosse the very Principles of nature and the whole discourse of the Apostle (who mainely teacheth, that no man is edified, except he vnderstande: and meaneth by vnderstanding both the knowe∣ledge of the words that enter our eares, & of the sense that affecteth our hearts: so are you woorse than mad to defend that men may be edified by speach where∣of they vnderstand not so much as one word, to confute so shamefull an absurdi∣tie, we neede neither Scriptures nor Fathers:* 1.438 Children of sixe yeares old wil tell you, they bee no whit the better for all your paines, if they vnderstand not your wordes. What will you not say, that wil say this? And when you that be masters in Israel, are so blinde, how great must the blindnesse of others be, that take their light from you? You resist not onely God, and his trueth, but you force your owne tongues to speake against your owne heartes. For say your selues; if a man speake Welch or Irish to you, that vnderstand it not, what will it profit you, or which way can you be edified by it?

Phi.

Welch or Irish would do vs no good, but Greeke or Hebrewe would.* 1.439

Theo.

What difference between Hebrew and Irish to him that vnderstandeth a word of neither? When the heart conceiueth not the sense of the words, nor so much as distinguisheth the tongue, whether it be Hebrewe or Irish, for lack of knowledge, howe can the Hebrewe or greeke tongue, though the one bee sacred and the other learned, instruct the hearer, or helpe his vnderstanding more than Welch or Irish can?

The Apostles Rule,* 1.440 If I come to you speaking with tongues (not vnder∣stood) what shall I profit you? ••s generally true of all tongues. Nemo edificatur audiendo quod non intelligit: No man,* 1.441 saith Augustine, is edified with hearing that which he vnderstandeth not. * 1.442 Linguas loquens seipsum edificat, quod quidē fieri non potest, nisi quae loquatur norit: He that speaketh with tongues edifieth himselfe: which is not possible, except he knowe what hee saith, as Chryso∣stome noteth. And Ambrose, Si vtique ad edificandum Ecclesiam conuenitis, ea dici debent, quae intelligant audientes; If you come together to edifie the Church, those thinges must bee spoken which the hearers may vnder∣stand. If then there bee no edification, where nothing is vnderstood;* 1.443 a strange tongue, bee it Hebrewe, Greeke, Welche or Irish, cannot edifie the hearer

that is ignorant of them; by reason the heart perceiueth not the words, much lesse the sense of that which is spoken.

Phi.

We say, the simple people, and many one that thinke themselues some body, vnderstand as litle of the sense of diuers Psalmes, lessons and Oraisons in the vulgar toung as if they were in Latine.* 1.444

Theo.

And we say you do nothing now but cauill,* 1.445 which in matters of trueth is not tolerable. For what if the vulgar sort vnder∣stand not the perfect sense of euery verse or worde that is read in the Church, will you thence inferre; that the diuine seruice in a knowen tongue doth not edi∣fi••? Your selues, steppe out the prowdest of you, vnderstand not euery line & letter that is written in the old & New Testament; Do the Scriptures there∣fore not edifie; or blame you the holy Ghost for writing them, because you doe not euery where reach to the depth of them? What teacher can be so plaine; but in debating matters of faith and saluation he shall be many times forced to passe the capacity of rude & ignorant men? Wil you therefore conclude against S. Paul, that neither Prophets, nor Preachers edifie? In the epistles (and so no doubt sermons) of Paul himselfe there are (and were) some things hard to be vnderstoode.* 1.446 Were the Preachings and writings therefore o•• the Apostle vnprofitable?

Phi.

* 1.447We reason against your seruice, not against the Scriptures.

Theo.

As though the Psalmes and lessons in our seruice, were not partes of the sacred Scriptures. If therfore our diuine seruice do not edifie in respect of the psalms and lessons there song and read, then the Scriptures themselues do not edifie, and consequently S. Paul was ouershot when hee saide, whatsoeuer things are written, were written for * 1.448 our instruction; and the Holy Ghost deceiued when he witnessed, that the whole Scripture is * 1.449 profitable to teach, correct and instruct. Or if the spirite of God be trueth, as there is no question he is, then are you voide both of his spirite and of trueth also to say that diuers psalms and lessons do not edifie.

Phi.

You be very snappish: we speak of your praiers, as well as of the Psalmes and lessons: Neither doe we say the Psalmes and lessons do not edi∣fie, but y^• the simple vnderstand not diuers of them no more than if they were in Latine.

Theo.

They must be very simple that vnderstand not our praiers. They containe nothing besides the confession of our sinnes to god, the rendring of thankes for his graces and mercies bestowed on vs in Christ his sonne,* 1.450 and the asking of such things at his hands as his wisedome seeth to be needfull and his goodnesse thinketh expedient for vs and all mankind. And these things if any man vnderstand not, being distinctly and daily pronounced in his mother tongue, you may begge him for a naturall and doe him no wrong.

As for the Psalmes and Lessons, since they be Gods not ours, the question must not be whether euerie ladde or lasse, prentise and ploughman exactly vn∣derstand euery word that is written,* 1.451 but whether they edifie the church of Christ or no; that is, whether they haue in them many thinges fruitfull to be knowen, and easie to bee learned if the hearers will be diligent and delight in the law of

God as they ought, & are bound to doe. And in this case masters, you be not only snappish but very saucy with God himself, that wil not suffer him to speak in his Church by the mouthes of his Prophetes and Apostles, if you finde any sot or sim••le idiote in the company that happily vnderstandeth not euery word which the holy Ghost vttereth.

Were you Surgions of the body, and had some in cure, that could not see with one eye, to remedy that imperfection, would you put out both, and make them starke blind?

Phi.

A wise similitude.* 1.452

Theo.

As wise as your illation a∣gainst our diuine seruice. For where some be so dull and ignorant, that they conceiue not diuerse thinges in the Psalmes, Lessons and prayers, to helpe that, you would take from them the rest which they doe vnderstand, and so fill their eares with the strangenesse of an vnknowen tongue, that their hearts perceiue iust asmuch of your prayers, as blind men ••o of colours.

And see you not that your assertion strangleth it selfe, and clearly conuinceth the vnfruitfulnesse of your latine prayers? For if the people bee so simple that they vnderstande not the sense of many thinges in their mother tongue,* 1.453 how many thinke you among them vnderstand the same or any thing else in the la∣tine tongue? If the Scriptures must be inioyned silence in the Church because they speake some thinges which the ruder sort can not easily attain, what place can be left for your latine Masse, Mattines and seruice, of which the people vn∣derstand not one word: and the knowledge of so much, as one sentence thereof, before they can get, they must be not only Diuines, which you say they are not, but good Grammarians, which in their education is not possible?* 1.454 What else is this but to put out both their eyes, & where before they vnderstood many things that were both fruitfull and needefull for them, so to mure vp their eares and choke vp their harts with a barbarous sound of vnknowen speech, that neither the simpler, nor wiser sort of them perceiued any line or letter of your seruice?

Phi.

Call you the latine tongue barbarous?

Theo.

Not in it selfe, but in respect of the hearer, which is not acquainted with it. And so S. Paul calleth any language that is not vnderstood, barbarous to him,* 1.455 that vnderstandeth it not. * 1.456 If I know not the power (or signification) of the speech, I shall bee barbarous to him that speaketh, and hee that speaketh shall be barbarous to me (that vnderstand him not.)

Phi.

You are deceiued. There is here no worde written or ment of any other tongues but such as men spake in the primatiue Church by miracle.

Theo.

Did not the twelue Apostles, that were Hebrewes borne, speake Greeke and Latine by the miraculous gift of the holy Ghost, descending on them in the likenes of clouen and firie tongues, as it is specified in the se∣cond of the Actes?

Phi.

I thinke they did: because the Romanes are there na∣med amongest those that hearde, euery man their owne language at the Apo∣stles mouthes:* 1.457 Mary though the Hebrew, Greeke and Latine might bee giuen by miracle and without study, it being knowen to the Iewes, Romanes or Greekes, in eue∣ry place, they be not counted among the differences of barbarous and straunge tongues here spoken of.

Theo.

* 1.458S. Paul doth not here like a Rhetorician, as you would haue him, distinguish the tongues which bee most eloquent and oratoricall in themselues: that was farre from the Apostles minde or purpose: but onely sheweth that eue∣ry tongue not vnderstood, bee it Hebrew, Greeke, Latine, Persike, Arabike, or what language you list, seemeth not without iust cause to bee barbarous to him that knoweth not the force and signification of the speech. And so he limi∣teth the word barbarous; when hee saith: If I knowe not the power of the voice,* 1.459 I shall bee barbarous to him that speaketh (and hee likewise to mee.) * 1.460Omnis sermo qui non intelligitur barbarus iudicatur. Euery tongue that is not vnderstood, is deemed, saith Hierom, to be barbarous.* 1.461 And Chrysostom, * 1.462He shalbe barbarous to me, and I to him. Non vtique ob naturam vocis sed ob imperitiam, not by the nature of the toung, but by the vnskilfulnes (of the hea∣rer.) * 1.463 Non enim barbarus, inquit, ero: sed loquenti barbarus. Et rursus, non qui loqui∣tur barbarus est, inquits sed mihi barbarous. For (S. Paul) saith not, I shal (sim∣plie be a barbarian, but barbarous to him that speaketh. And againe, hee that speaketh shall not be (absolutely) a barbarian, but barbarous vnto me, saith the Apostle.

Phi.

This we say was not ment of any of the three learned toungs, namely not of the Latine, Greeke nor Hebrew.

The.

That is one of your oracles in your Rhemish obseruatiōs, but we would heare your reasons & not your fansies, why the Latine toung, if it be not vnderstood, may not bee counted barbarous to the hearer.

Phi.

* 1.464Know you that nothing (in this chapter) is ment of those toungs which were the common languages of the world, or of the faithfull, vnderstood of the learned and ciuill people in euery great citie, and in which the scriptures of the old and new Testament were written.

Theo.

This is pride, to affirme what you will your selues•• it is no reason to confirme that which is now in question betwixt vs: And yet that which you af∣firme is either not true, or not much to the matter. For first in latine no Scrip∣tures were written; but the Apostle writing to the Romans wrate in the Greek toung & not in latine,* 1.465 which argueth that the la••ine toung was nothing so much esteemed, or so generally dispersed as the Greeke. Next that the learned & ciuile people in euery great city had the knowledge of the Hebrew, Greeke & latine, is an other of your Iesuitical truthes, auouched by no man but by your selues, & no way possible to be proued, but by your magistrall surmises.

The Hebrew was hard & neglected of all men sauing of the Iewes, whose peculiar tongue it was; the greater cities despising as well the Nation as their language, til Christ was ascended; & between that & the preaching of the Gospel in the greater cities the people though they were ciuil had neither time, capacity nor meanes to learne a newe tongue, and so difficult a tongue both to pronounce and vnderstand as the Hebrew is.

The Greeke tongue was in high price and farther spred, before the birth of our Sauiour, not only by reason of the Monarchie which was amongest the

Grecians before it came to the Romanes, but specially for that all liberall studies, artes and exercises were handled and perfited either wholy or chiefely by the Grecians, the Romanes affecting rather the inlarging of their Empire with armes and triumphes than the furnishing of their citie with scholasticall & academicall ornamentes.

The Latine tongue came in last, and though in the West partes be∣tweene this and Rome it some-what preuailed by reason of the Empire, and no better tongue neerer; yet in the East it was little regarded and sel∣dome vsed, yea the Grecians in comparison of their tongue neglected it as bar∣barous.

Phi.

Barbarous?* 1.466 who euer called the Romanes Barbarians, or the La∣tine tongue barbarous?

Theo.

The Grecians disdained the Romane tongue as barbarous in respect of their own, and did not sticke to number the Ro∣manes amongst the barbarians. Plautus the father of the latine toung transla∣ting a Comedie out of the Greeke into Latine, sayeth: Marcus vertit barbare: Plautus translated it into the barbarous tongue (of the Romanes.) Strabo confesseth that many diuiding the whole world into Greekes and Barbarians put the Romanes in the second rancke amongest the Barbarians; which parti∣tion dured to the Apostles time, and is inserted in the first beginning of his Epi∣stle to the Romanes. I am debter to the Greekes and to the Barbarians, and therefore am readie to preach the Gospell to you also, that are at Rome. He is a debter to both and by that meanes to the Romanes: the Romanes there∣fore by S. Pauls own mouth (since they were not Grecians) are numbred a∣mongst the Barbarians.

Mary this is not materiall to our purpose,* 1.467 the Grecians in their proud con∣ceit thought euery Nation barbarous that wanted any thing of the da••••tinesse of their speech, & delicatenes of their life; where in deede no Nation may iustly be counted barbarous, except it bee voide of all humane ciuilitie and societie, which the Romanes then were not, and infinite Nations nowe are not. But S. Paul in this place, which we reason of, vseth barbarous for that which is not vnderstood of the hearer, though the tongue in it selfe be neuer so learned, or e∣loquēt. Those are his very words in this chapter vttered for the better declara∣tion of his meaning: and the word beareth this sense euen among prophane wri∣ters as when the Poete that was a Romane, and vanished into Pontus, saide,* 1.468 Barbarus hic ego sum, quia non intelligor vlli. I am here a barbarian, because no man vnderstandeth what I speake.* 1.469 Euen so the Grecians and Hebricians by Sainct Pauls resolution are barbariās to him that knoweth not what they say.

Phi.

You shall neuer induce mee to thinke that S. Paul spake of any of those three tongues, which were after a sort sanctif••••d in our Sauiours crosse.

Theo.

What you will bee ledde to wee greatly passe not, the Scriptures de∣pend not on your dreames, wee search for the sense of Sainct Paules wordes, which being generall may not be restrained to what you list without some surer authoritie than your owne. There are, saith the Apostle, for example sake, so

many kindes of tongues * 1.470 in the world, and * 1.471 none of them is without sounde (or signification.) Yet if I know not the vertue of the voice, I shal bee barba∣rous to him that speaketh (in any of them) and he that speaketh shall be bar∣barous to me. * 1.472There are so many kinds of voices in the world. That is, saith Chrysostom, so many tongues & languages; to wit, the Scythian, Thracian, Romane, Persian, Mauritanian, Indian, Egyptian, and of thowsand other na∣tions besides these. Therefore if I know not the power of the voice, I shall be barbarous to him that speaketh. Neither would I haue you thinke it to come to passe in vs onely, you may see the like in * 1.473 all. And concluding him that praied in latine, if he vnderstood not his owne speech, to bee barbarous to himselfe by this very rule of the Scripture, he saith: If a man should presently speake in the Persian tongue, or in any other strange tongue, and not vnder∣stand what he speaketh, he shall be barbarous euen to himselfe, not only to an other that knew not the power of the language. There were at the first many that praied and gaue a sound with the voice, vsing the Persian or Ro∣mane tongue, which vnderstood not what they said. The Apostle therefore hence teacheth that our tongue ought to speake, and our minde withal vn∣derstand the wordes. Which except we do, there must of* 1.474 necessity follow a confusion.

* 1.475S. Ambrose exemplifieth the Apostles discourse in none other tongues but in the Greeke and Hebrew.* 1.476 If I pray with the tongue, my spirite praieth, but mine vnderstanding is without fruite. It is manifest that the mind of man is ignorant, when he speaketh with a toung which he vnderstandeth not, as latine men vse to sing Greeke, delighted with the sound of the wordes, but not knowing what they say. And shewing who they were that the Apostle re∣proueth in this whole chapter, he saith: * 1.477 Hij ex Hebraeis erant, qui aliquando Syra lingua, plerumque Hebraea intractatibus aut oblationibus vtebantur ad com∣mendationē: They were Hebrewes who to commend thēselues vsed somtimes the Syrike,* 1.478 most times the Hebrew tongue in their Sermons and (prayers) at the oblation.

Haymo likewise bringeth the Greeke & Hebrew tongues to declare the Apo∣stles meaning. If I know not the power] or vnderstāding, [of the voice] which I heare [I shalbe barbarous to him that speaketh: & he that speaketh shal be barbarous to me]. For example, I am a Grecian, thou an Hebrew: if I speak to thee in Greeke, I shall seeme barbarous: Likewise if thou speake to mee in Hebrew, thou shalt seeme barbarous. And, that as well in praying as preaching. * 1.479 An idiot is hee that knoweth that onely tongue where∣in he was borne and bred. If such an one therefore stand by thee, whiles thou dost solemnly celebrate the mysterie of the Masse, or make a sermon, or giue a blessing▪ how shall he say Amen at thy blessing, whē he knoweth not what thou sayest? for so much as he vnderstanding none but his mother tongue, can not tell what thou speakest in that (strange and) barbarous tongue (bar∣barous not in it selfe, but in respect of him that vnderstandeth it not.)

You say the Apostle by strange tongues meaneth not the latin, Greeke or Hebrue: S. Chrysostom and S. Ambrose do verifie the Apostles words of those toungs namelie and chiefly: yea S. Ambrose saith the occasion of all this offence, were certain Iewes that in their prayers at the Lords table, and exhortations to the people, (to shewe them selues) vsed for the most part the Hebrew tongue. They affirme that which you denie: and they deny that which you affirme. Surely you or they must needs be fouly deceiued.

Phi.

That S. Paul speaketh not of the Church seruice,* 1.480 is prooued by inuincible ar∣guments. It is euident that the Corinthians had their seruice in Greeke at this same time, and it was not done in these miraculous tongues. Nothing is meant then of the Church seruice. Againe, the publike Seruice had but one language: in this exercise they spake in many tongues.* 1.481 In the the publike Seruice euery man had not his owne spe∣cial tongue, his special interpretation, speciall Reuelation, proper Psalmes: but in this they had. Againe, the publike Seruice had in it the ministration of the holy Sacrament principally: which was not done in this time of conference. For into this exercise were admitted Catechumens and Infidels and whosoeuer would: in this women, before S. Pauls order, did speake and prophesie: so did they neuer in the ministration of the Sa∣crament. With many other plaine differences, that by no meanes the Apostles wordes can be rightly and truely applied to the Corinthians Seruice then, or ours now. There∣fore it is either great ignorance of the Protestants, or great guilefulnesse, so vntruely and peruersly to apply them.

Theo.

Before I reply, let me aske you a question.

Phi.

With a good will.

Theo.

Are you not a Priest?

Phi.

I am, or I should be.

Theo.

I will not oppose you after what order, Aarons being abolished, & Melchizedecks not imparted to any mortal man: But by vertue of your priesthood are you not bound to cate∣chise as wel as to baptize, that is, to preach the word as wel as to minister the sacraments?

Phi.

So we do, as time and place require.

Theo.

If I should vrge you, that you & your felowes neuer preach, because euery holyday & sunday you say Masse, & massing is apparently no preaching, what would you answer?

Phi.

I would answer that you made a very childish & foolish argument. For though the one be not the other, yet we may do both at one time & in one place successiue∣ly before wee depart. And if you doubt of this, the meanest parish clarke in Christendome may be your master.

Theo.

You pul not me,* 1.482 but your self by the nose, Philander, and mark it not. Your inuincible arguments, wherby you would proue, that S. Paul in this whole Chapter spake nothing of the Church seruice in Corinth, are such ridiculous toyes of all the worlde, as this, which I brought for example to trie your pa∣tience with.

Phi.

You shall not defeate the force of our reasons with such a iest.

Theo.

Neither shall you delude the Apostles doctrine with such a shift.* 1.483

The Church of Corinth had then, as al other Churches nowe haue, (or should haue) both praying & preaching annexed and adioyned to the ministration of the Lords supper. Both these yet are, & euer were the meanes which God ordained to prepare vs to be fit ghests for that Table. Howe shal they, saith the Apostle,

call on him in whom they haue not beleeued? and how shall they beleeue in him of whom they haue not heard? & how shall they heare without a Prea∣cher? Hearing is the nurce of faith, and faith is the fountaine of praier: & with∣out praier wee may not approach to God, nor to the Sacrament of thankesgi∣uing, which by the very name it beareth, putteth vs in mind what duty we must yeeld to God when we are partakers of it.

* 1.484By this it is euident that teaching in the church of God doth not exclude prai∣ing, but is rather the mean that God hath appointed to direct & incite the minds of the faithfull to make their praiers vnto him in such sort as they ought when they are gathered togither in Christs name, to serue God the father in the spirit of his sonne. And so the holy Ghost describeth the church that was at Ierusalem vpon the first spredding of the Gospel: from whence we must take the forme of Apostolik churches. They continued, saith the Scripture, in the Apostles do∣ctrine, and fellowship, and breaking of bread, and praiers; noting * 1.485 doctrine, prayers, & brotherly communion at the Lords table to be the publike exercises of christians in their assemblies where the Apostles themselues were present in their persons to guide & gouerne those meetings.

Phi.

* 1.486You come not yet to the point.

Theo.

I will not long be from it. These praiers, exhortations and instructions which the faithfull had in their assem∣blies, were they not partes of the seruice which they yeelded to God?

Phi.

Yees, but not of the church seruice.

Theo.

What seruice was there in the church be∣sides this that I mention?

Phi.

The ministration of the Sacrament.

Theo.

If you meane the order and fashion of administring the Sacrament, Saint Paul receiued that of the Lord and deliuered it to the church of Corinth in such man∣ner and forme as we finde expressed not many leaues before in the 11. of this Epistle. But there is no church seruice prescribed or named; onely the elemēts and actions of the Lordes supper are particularly remembred and commit∣ted to the church as her chiefest iewell, in her husbandes absence, vntill hee come.

Phi.

* 1.487Thinke you they had no set Rites, Collectes, nor praiers deliuered them from the Apostles for that holy action?

Theo.

You presume they had: and vppon that false imagination you ground the most part of your headlesse argumentes, that the Apostle speaketh not of the Church seruice.

Phi.

Had they no speciall forme of prayer prescribed in their churches whiles the Apo∣stles liued?

Theo.

Had they say you?

Phi.

Else they had nothing but confu∣sion in their churches.* 1.488

Theo.

Blaspheme not so fast. The power of the holy Ghost miraculously supplying all wantes, and inspiring the Pastours and Elders in euery Church howe to pray, was no confusion.

Phi.

Do you thinke they changed their prayers in euery place and at euery meeting as pleased the minister?

Theo.

You may well perceiue by the Apostles wordes that they had neither Sermons nor Seruice prefixed nor limited in his time: but when the Church came togither, the Elders and Ministers instructed the people and made their prayers by inspiration.

Phi.

I knowe they did so, but this

was not the Church Seruice.

Theo.

This was all the church Seruice they had: to which they added the celebration of the Lordes supper, but with∣out any setled or prefined order of praier, except it were he Lords praier which they obserued in all places as comming from the mouth of Christ himselfe, their Soueraigne Lord and Master.

Phi.

Mary Sir that were euen such seruice as you haue at this day, where e∣uery blind Minister bableth what he listeth.

Theo.

Iest not at God, except you wil be Iulian.

Phi.

I iest at your disorder, which you would seeme to deriue frō the Primatiue Church of the Apostles.

Theo.

In deede wee haue not so ma∣ny turnes and touches, bowtes and becks as you haue in your Masses: other disorder in our Seruice I know none, vnlesse it bee that wee doe not * 1.489 swinge the Censers, rince the chalice, tosse the Masse-booke, plaie with the host, and sleepe at Memento, as you doe, with a number of like toyes throughout your seruice.

Phi.

Doe not you nowe iest at our Seruice?

Theo.

At your stage-like gestures I may without offence, but you iested at the miraculous gift of the holy Ghost guiding the Pastours and prophetes of the primatiue church in their publike praiers and exhortations, and called it a confusion, and resem∣bled it to our babling in the church at this day, which you thinke to be very dis∣ordered.

Phi.

I see no proofe that the Pastours of the Church in the Apostles time made their publike prayers as you say,* 1.490 by miraculous instinct of the spirite.

Theoph.

Doe but open your eyes when you reade this chapter, and you can not choose but see it. Both this and the twelfth chapter treate wholy of the gifts of the spirite. Where you finde that to one (was) giuen by the spirit the word of wisedome, to an other the word of knowledge: to an other fayth: to an other giftes of healing by the same spirite:* 1.491 to an other operation of wonders: to an other, prophesie: to an other, discerning of spirites: to an other, diuersities of toungs: to an other interpretation of toungs.

Phi.

Here is not the gift of praier numbred amongest them.

Theo.

But in the fourteenth it is, where shewing them how they should behaue themselues in the Church, when the congregation was assembled, he laieth this downe as a rule for them to follow.* 1.492 I will pray with thee spirite, but I will pray with the vnder∣standing also: I will sing with the spirite, but I will sing with the vnder∣standing also. Else when thou blessest with the spirite, how shal he that oc∣cupieth the room of the simple (or common) person say Amen at the giuing of thanks, seeing he knoweth not what thou saiest?

To pray, sing and blesse, * 1.493 with the spirite in this place, can bee nothing else but to be guided and led by the spirit in their praiers, Psalmes & thanks as they were in their doctrines, interpretations & exhortations: which was by mi∣racle on the suddain, not by learning or study. This was done in the church whē al y^e faithful were present, & to these praiers, psalms, & thāksgiuings, the people were to say Amen as the Apostle sheweth, which is the ende signe and proofe of publike prayer, among christians. What is church seruice, if this be not?

or what other Seruice could the Church haue besides hearing the word and offering their common supplications vnto God by the mouth of one man, the rest vnderstanding what he said, and confirming his praier with saying Amen?

Phi.

* 1.494The Apostle speaketh of one man (supplying the place of the vulgar) and you stretch it to the whole people.

Theo.

If the praiers of the Church concerned some of the people, and not all, you might make that obiection with some shew: but now it hath no color, when S. Paul asketh* 1.495 How shal the sim∣ple man say Amen: he meaneth not this or that man, but any or euery. And so the indefinite signifieth generally, throughout the Scripture. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord imputeth no sinne: that is, Blessed is euery man to whom the Lord imputeth no sin. * 1.496Cursed be the man that obserueth not all the workes of the Law, to doe them, that is, by S. Pauls owne exposition, Cursed is * 1.497 euery man that continueth not in all things which are written in the booke of the Lawe, to doe them. The whole Scripture is full of the like. And therefore Chrysostome noteth, Indoctum, promiscuam plebem vocat, monstratque non leue incommodum esse, si Amen dicere non possit. The vnlearned he calleth the vulgar people, and declareth it to be no smale inconuenience if they cannot say Amen.

Phi.

I see they did praie, sing and blesse with the spirite, and that the people said Amen;* 1.498 but had they no speciall nor vsuall praiers reserued for the ministration of the Sacrament, which might not be varied?

Theo.

You think belike they had your Introite, Grail, Tract, Sequēce, Offertorie, Secrets, Postcommunion, Pax, and Ite missa est.

Phi.

Sure they had some precise forme of seruice, though we know it not.

Theo.

And since you knowe it not, why should you make it the anker hold of all your exposition vpon S. Paul?

Phi.

Had they no order for their seruice?

Theo.

What a stirre here is for that which the Apostles neuer did? Had they set an order for the seruice of the Church, durst any man after haue broken it?

Phi.

S. Iames masse is yet extant.

Theo.

And so are a number of other foolish forgeries as wel as that.* 1.499

Phi.

Do you think it forged?

Theo.

Which of S. Iames masses do you meane?

Phi.

There are not so many that you should aske which.

Theo.

Two there are vnder his name, the one nothing like the other, & yet both fathered vpō him.

Phi.

We haue but one, and that set in order of church seruice, with mutual praiers and answers for Priest and People very perfectly.

Theo.

And the other you shall find in the * 1.500 eight booke of Cle∣mens Apostolike constitutions, where * 1.501 the fourteene Apostles (for so you haue increased their number as well as their constitutions) take precise order what praiers, answers and actions shal be vsed at the mysticall sacrifice; their first prescription being this, that Two Deacons shal be on both sides of the altar, with tuffs of pecocks tails in their hands to driue away gnats, left they light in the Chalice: a graue consideration for Christs Apostles to meete together to make flappes to catch flies.

Phi.

That I graunt, is a matter of smal respect, but yet not enough to re∣fute

the booke.

Theo.

It is sufficiently refuted in that neither the Church of Christ nor your selues euer esteemed it.* 1.502 Had this book beene Authentik it must needs haue beene taken into the canon of the Scriptures. For if that which any one Apostle wrate be Canonical, much more that which al the Apostles, with common consent decreed and ordered. Againe had the Apostles prescribed an exact fourme of diuine seruice for the Lords table, what man would haue, altered it, or what Church refused it? How would either Basill or Chrysostome haue presumed to make newe formes of Church seruice, if those liturgies be theirs, & not rather forced on thē, as this is on the first & chiefe Apostles of Christ? Why did the Latine Church and the Church of Rome her selfe neglect that seruice if it were Apostolike, and preferre the praiers of one * 1.503 Scholasticus as worthier to be said ouer the deuine mysteries, the maker being so obscure a man, that his name is not knowen in the church of god? why were the Bishops of Rome 600. yeares & vpward patching & piecing the masse before they brought it to any set∣led forme, as your own fellowes * 1.504 confesse, and yet then Rome had one forme of seruice, * 1.505 Millan an other which they keepe at this day, Fraunce a thirde? Why did Gregorie when he was consulted by Augustine the monke, what forme of diuine seruice he should commēd to the Saxons, wil him to bind himselfe neither * 1.506 to Rome nor to any church els, but to take from euery place that which he liked best, and deliuer that vnto the English?

To cut off al ambiguities we haue the plaine testimonie of Gregorie the great,* 1.507 that the Church of Rome 600. yeres after Christ knew nothing of those constitutions and Church seruices which are now obtruded vnder the Apostles names.* 1.508 Mos Apostolorum fuit, vt ad ipsam solummodo orationem (Dommicam) oblationis hostiam consecraret. This was, saith he, the maner of the Apostles to consecrate the sacrifice, with saying no moe praiers but the Lords praier. In vaine therefore doe you dreame of a settled forme of praier for the Lords supper, where as the Apostles haue none, but left that to the direction and dispo∣sition of the holy Ghost inspiring the ministers and elders in euery Church, when the faithful were assembled, to make their praiers vnto god with the peo∣ple; and to render him thankes for all his mercies, as the spirite gaue them vtterance. This Chrysostome calleth * 1.509Precandi domum, the (miraculous) gift of praiers whereof S. Paul speaketh in this place, and Tertul. seemeth to mē∣tion the same in his Apologie for the Christians as during in the Church vnto his time.* 1.510 We, saith he, looking vp to heauen with our hands stretched out as being innocent, bareheaded, as not ashamed, sine monitore, quia de pectore, oramus, make our praiers without any prompter as comming from the (free) motion of our own harts.

Phi.

Our arguments conuince that S. Paul spake not of the Churches seruice: and till those be answered, we cannot change our minds.* 1.511

Theo.

That which I haue alreadie saide, openeth your error, in mistaking or els peruerting the wordes of S. Paul, choose you whether: if that content you not, repeate your reasons as they stand in rew, that we may see their force.

Phi.

It is euident the Corinthians had their Seruice in Greeke at this same time, and ••t was not done in these miraculous toungs. Nothing is ment then of the church seruice.

Theo.

* 1.512To vs it is out of question that the Corinthians had their publike pray∣ers and exhortations in the Greeke tongue: because the common people of that City vnderstood none other: and the tongue which they vnderstoode not, might not be vsed in the Church by S. Pauls rule: but you that denie S. Paul to speak of the Church seruice in this place, howe prooue you the Corinthians had their Seruice in the Greeke tongue?

Phi.

Doe you thinke they had not?

Theo.

For our parts, as I tolde you, we are resolued: because S. Paul would neither haue preaching nor praying in the Church but such as might edifie: & addeth, that an vnknown tongue profiteth nothing to edificatiō: mary you are otherwise min∣ded, and therefore I see not howe you can proue that they had their seruice in the Greeke tongue, which you affirme to be euident.

Phi.

Had they their Seruice, trow you, in an vnknowne tongue?

Theo.

In your opinion, that is no such absurdity.* 1.513

Phi.

They could not vnderstand it, ex∣cept it were in Greeke.

Theo.

This is contrary to your owne Principles. For the Hebrewe, Greeke and Latine as you told vs euen nowe were vnderstoode of the cyuill people in euery great Citie: and were that vntrue, as I know it is, though you auouched it for an aduantage, yet is it not necessarie to vnderstand our prayers, as your selues defend in this your declaration vpon S. Paul, and following the path that you leade vs in your Rhemish obseruations,* 1.514 wee say you can not prooue the Corinthians had their seruice in the Greeke tongue.

Philand.

In what tongue else coulde they haue it?

Theoph.

Rather in Hebrewe than in Greeke, for that tongue was sacred, and naturall to the Iewes who first spred the Gospel, and planted the Churches.

Phi.

The Apostle requireth the people shoulde vnderstande the prayers of the Church, otherwise they reape no profite by them; and to speake Hebrewe in the Church to them that vnderstood nothing but Greeke, were no reason.

Theo.

Are you there at host now? Can you plea thus on both sides when you be vrged? You are making inuincible arguments, that the Apostle speaketh nothing in this place of the Churches seruice, & before you can iustifie the first proposition which you bring, you bee faine to take hold of this very place to prooue, the Co∣rinthians had their Church seruice in Greeke.

Phi.

Nay without this place it is euident they had their seruice in greeke.

The.

Set this chapter aside, and if you prooue the Corinthians had their seruice in Greeke at this very time when the Apostle wrate, wee giue you the cause.

Phi.

You be resolued they had, and yet you put vs to prooue it, as if it were in doubt.

Theo.

I tel the reason. It is euident they had their seruice in a knowen tongue by that which the Apostle here writeth, otherwise it is not euident by any other proofe that you can make. And since you will haue the Apostle to speake no∣thing of the Church Seruice in this chapter, why shoulde wee not put you to prooue that which you lay for the ground of your misconstring Saint Pauls text?

Phi.

A trueth it is,* 1.515 what proofe soeuer may, or may not be brought for it.

Theo.

Let it stand for trueth, what will you conclude?

Phi.

Nothing is meant then of their Church Seruice.

Theo.

Why so?

Phi.

That was in Greeke, and well vnderstood of all the people.

Theo.

A worthy sequele. As if it were not possible for some vaine men to disturbe the Church of Corinth notwith∣standing the Apostle had left generall direction that al things should be doone in the church vnto edification. The Lordes supper was rightly deliuered them: was it therefore not abused by some amongst them? The like say we for their praiers in the church. No doubt Paul ordained at Corinth as he did in al other churches of the Saincts, that the people should say Amen to euery blessing and thankesgiuing that was vsed in the Church. Might not therfore some of their Elders and ministers, to venditate themselues and the gift which they had of God, sometimes blesse and make their praiers at the Lords table in a tongue not vnderstoode of the whole multitude?

Phi.

Were they strangers or inhabitants?

Theo.

It skilleth not whe∣ther; they might bee either.

Phi.

Inhabitants there would vse none other toung than their owne, and strangers might not minister Sacramentes in other mens Churches.* 1.516

Theo.

Some of their own might be so vain glorious, as in making their praiers at the Lordes table, (which was then doone by hart and not after any prescribed order or form) to shew the gift of tongues, which they receiued of the holy Ghost, to an other end, and not to commend them-selues without edifiing the hearer. Strangers also if they were in place were suffered both to teach and blesse in the Church, as well as others that were tied to their Cures by reason that many were sent by the Apostles and by the holy Ghost to visite the Churches and comfort the Christians as they traueled, and such were, according to their knowledge and gift, not only permitted, but also desired to exhort the people and giue thanks to God in other mens charges.

Philand.

This might be: but how proue you this was the fault which the Apostle reproued?

Theo.

I need not proue that. If this which I speake might easilie come to passe, then your inuincible arguments be sensible follies, & corelude vtterly * 1.517 no such thing as you imagine. Your argumēt cannot be impregnable til your consequent be ineuitable: & since so many cases may be put, though your antecedent be admitted to repel your consequēt, what wisedome was it to make such vaunt of your forces not onely before the victory, but when you see your selues so voide of al good artillerie?* 1.518

Phi.

Againe the publike seruice had but one language: in this exercise they speak with many tongues.

Theo.

Againe you can neither verifie your antecedent, nor iustifie your consequent. Set order of publike seruice they had none in the Apostles time; the Pastors and ministers praied by heart, as the spirite of God guided them. This gift of praier some turned to their owne prayse and ostentation, when they were admitted to giue thanks to God in the congregation of the faithfull,

and made their prayers in such tongues as they preferred, or would seeme en∣dewed with, though the people vnderstood them not, for which attempt the A∣postle controlleth them.

Phi.

These are your conceiuements.

Theo.

Were they no mans but mine, your reasons are weake and euen contemptible, which you proclaimed for inuincible: but as you heard, S. Ambrose did informe you,* 1.519 that these men, whom S. Paul here toucheth, vsed sometimes the Syrian, and most times the Hebrew tongue, in tractatibus aut oblationibus, in their dis∣courses (to the people) or ministration of the Sacrament, as they pleased.

Phi.

* 1.520In the publike seruice euery man had not his owne speciall tongue, his speciall interpretation, special reuelation, proper Psalmes: but in this they had.

Theophil.

In the publike seruice of the church, the ministers and Elders which were many both trauelers and there dwellers,* 1.521 had euery man his Psalme, his instruction, his tongue, reuelation, or interpretation as the spirite of grace thought it most expedient, for the setting foorth of Gods glory and the edifieng of their faithes that were present, and other order of di∣uine seruice in the Apostolike and primatiue church wee reade for certaintie of none, besides the action of the Lordes supper, which the Apostles, and so no doubt their churches alwaies vsed in the end of their publik meetings, but with not set prayers saue onely the Lordes prayer as Gregorie confesseth; the rest of their prayers, blessinges and thanksgiuinges were in euery place made by the gift of the holy Ghost inspiring such, as were set to teach and gouerne the church. And though you haue long since their time framed a Liturgie in Iames name, wheron you seeme to ground all the cauils, that here are vrged as inuincible arguments: yet for so much as the church of Christ did not acknow∣ledge it, and the words of Gregory directly impugne it: we return that home to the forge whence it came, & your arguments back to you as wanting both truth & strength to beare out your cause.

Phi.

* 1.522The publike seruice had in it the administration of the holy Sacrament princi∣pally, which was not done in the time of this conference.

Theo.

Though the Lordes supper was not ministred at that instant when the Pastors & people were intending for doctrine, yet did it follow immediatly vpon this exercise finished, and due thankes offered to God by the whole church for the redemption of the world in the blood of his sonne: neither besides your bold and bare negatiue do we see any cause why the singing, blessing, and thanks∣giuing which S. Paul speaketh of, should not be vnderstood, to be the prayers and Psalmes that were vsed before, after, and at the Lordes table: this I am sure, S. Paul willeth * 1.523 all thinges to be done to edification, and all must con∣taine the church seruice & ministration of the Sacrament, as wel as Psalms or any other exercises of the church. So that if the special discourse did not touch the ministration of the Lords supper, the general direction doeth comprise it: & so much the more, because the whole church as wel the people as the Preachers, as well women as men haue equall interest in the Lords supper, to be thereat fed, and thereby stirred to giue thanks to God for the richesse of his mercie in the

death of Christ. And if you thinke that vnderstanding and consenting is more needful for the people in any other prayers than in those, that are made at the Lordes Table, you erre not of ignorance, but of wilfulnesse; and care not what you say, so you may entertaine the simple with somewhat for the sauing of your credite.

Phi

Into this exercise were admitted the Catech••mens and Infidels,* 1.524 and who∣soeuer would: in this weomen, before S. Pauls order, did speake and prophesie: so did they neuer in the ministration of the Sacrament. With manie other plaine differences, that by no meanes the Apostles wordes can be rightly and truely applied to the Corin∣thians Seruice then, or ours nowe.

Theo.

You should close vppe the matter with the strongest argument you haue;* 1.525 and this is the weakest. At their prophesies that was at their sermons and exhortations Infidels and nouices not yet baptized might bee; at their myste∣ries they might not be, but were sent away, and the doores shut, when the faith∣full approached to the Lordes Table. Hence you may conclude that euery hea∣rer of the woorde may not bee partaker of the diuine mysteries; but that the one did not presently followe the other in the Seruice of the Church, or that S. Paul did not meane them both, you shall neuer conclude: yea rather the sending them away that might not bee present, argueth that the rest which were left did foorthwith addresse them-selues to the participation of the Lordes Table, and that all which was doone in the Church before, both exhorting and pray∣ing, was referred to this end, to make them meete commers to that heauenlie banquet.

Phi.

That may bee: but S. Paul speaketh of the one, and not of the o∣ther.

Theo.

That you should prooue, if you coulde tell howe.

Phi.

We haue alreadie prooued it by inuincible argumentes.

Theo.

Marie that you haue; if blinde surmises and loose sequeles may stand for argumentes; other∣wise what haue you saide, that hath any shewe of proofe, I will not saie, of in∣uincible proofe?

Your maine foundation is a dreame of your owne,* 1.526 that the Church of Co∣rinth had a prescribed number and order of prayers pronounced by some one Chaplin, that sayde his lesson within booke, and might not goe one line be∣sides his Missale for any good. This you imagine was their Church Seruice; all other prayers, Psalmes, blessings, and thankes-giuings though they were vsed openly in the congregation, and the whole people bound to say Amen, you will not haue to bee called Church Seruice. And where S. Paul by pre∣cept from God commaunded all things in the Church, both praying and prea∣ching to be doone in such sort as the people might vnderstand, say Amen, and be edified thereby: you conster that of certaine voluntary prayers which some priuate men made in the Church without commission; and of the publike and necessary prayers of the Church you holde opinion, the people neede not vnder∣stand them, nor say Amen, nor looke to bee edified by them. And because S. Paul speaketh of preaching as well as of praying, you vse the one as an ar∣gument

to exclude the other, which is very bad logike, and worse diuinitie. You were as good make this for a reason as I warned you in the beginning; Chri∣stians in their Churches haue sermons, ergo they haue neither prayers, nor Sa∣craments, which your selfe censured for a very childish and foolish argument.* 1.527

Phi.

That is no conclusion of ours.

Theo.

Weigh it well and you shall find it the very same that you make. For where the Christians vnder the Apostles had in their assemblies, first prophesying, that is the declaring of Gods wil and reuealing of his word, at the which Infidels, and newe conuerts not y••t bapti∣zed might be present, and next prayers and Psalmes to celebrate the goodnes and kindnes of God, and to prepare their mindes for the Lordes table, to the which all the faithfull came with one consent of heart and voyce, giu••ng thanks to God for their redemption in Christ, and blessing his holy name for al the rest of his graces, mercies and compassions on them; and this was doone by the mouthes of such Pastours and ministers as it pleased the holy ghost to direct & inspire for that function and action:* 1.528 the people hearing, vnderstanding and con∣firming their prayers and thankes with saying Amen, and other diuine Ser∣uice than this they had none: you take one part of the Churches exercise where∣at Infidels might be, which was preaching and declaring the word of God; as a strong inference that Saint Paul in that whole chapter, though he expressely name the publike praiers, psalmes, blessings & thankesgiuings of the Church, meaneth no part of the Church seruice: which if you well consider, you shall perceiue to bee captious, if not ridiculous sophistrie.

Philand.

Though Saint Paul speake of many things, yet he speaketh not one woorde of Church-seruice, which is the point that wee stand on.

Theo.

I pray you what is Church-seruice but Church prayers, Psalmes and lessons: which because Saint Paul so distinctly reciteth, hee can not choose we say, but meane the Church-seruice, vnlesse you can shewe, what seruice the church had or hath, besides these which hee nameth.

Phi.

The ministration of the sacraments is none of these which you speci∣fie, and yet the chiefest part of the church-seruice: and so are other rites which you omit.

Theo.

In the Church-seruice actions may bee necessarie, and Rites may bee seemely: of which Saint Paul speaketh not, because the a∣buse, which hee reprooued, was in their tongues and not in their handes: but the Church-seruice is properly that which is doone with the mouth; for GOD is not serued with moouing or vsing the handes, but our lippes shewe forth his prayse, and with our voyces wee cal vpon him, and this is more rightly termed diuine seruice, which is all one with Church-seruice, than any corporall ac••ions or outwarde gestures though they bee lawfull, and some of them neede••ull, as those for example which Christ commanded.

And euen in the ministration of the Lordes supper, woordes are essentiall as well as elements or actions, and without words it is both a dumbe action, and a dead element. In all sacramentes the word that is spoken, is farre superiour to the creature that is seene: and in this Sacrament by the first institution of

our sauiour,* 1.529 thankesgiuing is as requisite, as eating or drinking. Wherefore if S. Paul tooke order for the praiers, psalms, blessings, and thankesgiuing vsed in the Church, that they should be vnderstoode of the people, as wel as the Doc∣trines, Reuelations, and expositions of scriptures, which were an other and a necessarie part of the Churches exercise. S. Paul, we conclude, required that all Church seruice should be pronounced in such ••ort and with such speach, as the hearers might bee edified and say Amen, which they can not to a tongue that they know not. Or if that illation seeme not strong enough, S. Paul in plain words commaundeth as authorized from God, that all things, and there∣fore Church seruice, shoulde bee doone to edification: and no man is edified by that he vnderstandeth not, which is the fault that we find with your Latine Seruice in our Churches, where the people vnderstand no tongue but English.

Phi.

Yeas sir,* 1.530 the pople in euery Countrie vnderstandeth our seruice. For by the diligence of parents, Masters and Curats, euery Catholike of age al∣most, can tell the sense of euery Ceremonie of the Masse, what to answere, when to say Amen at the Priests Benediction, when to confesse, when to adore, when to stand, when to kneele, when to receiue, what to receiue, when to come, when to depart, and all other duties of praying and seruing, sufficient to saluation.

Theo.

He that hath no better stay must leaue to a broken staffe,* 1.531 or lie in the ground. You feared to be conuinced as withstanders of S. Pauls Doctrine, and therefore you bethought your selues of an other shift, which is as bad as the former. The Apostle proueth the praiers of the Church must be vnder∣stood of the people, because they must say Amen: thereby teaching vs, that no man may say Amen, except he both perceiue what is saide, and also confesse it to be true: for otherwise Amen is both a mocke and a lie, to no worse person than to God himselfe. He that sweareth or affirmeth any mans speach to bee true, when he knoweth not what he said, is a liar: And he that giueth a sound with his mouth, his hart not knowing what he asketh, maketh a iest of praier, and forgetteth himselfe to be a man. And for that cause S. Paul vrgeth it as a manifest absurditie for the people to say Amen to that, which they vnder∣stand not, though the ministers speach in it selfe be neuer so good and godly.

This you saw was so apparent, that though you cauiled about Church ser∣uice, and craked of your inuincible arguments: Yet the clearnes of saint Pauls wordes would reach home to the vnfruitfulnes of your Latin seruice in this Realme. For his wordes are, How shal (the vulgar man) say,* 1.532 Amen at thy thankesgiuing (in the Church) seeing hee knoweth not what thou sayest? And therefore you resolued since you were ouer the shoes in absurdities, to goe vp to the shoulders, and south••astly to say that in euery Countrie euery Catho∣like, of age, (almost) can tell the sense of euery ceremonie of the Masse, what to answere, where to say Amen at the Priests benediction, and all other duties of praying and ser∣uing sufficient to saluation.

Your memory did not serue you to ioyn Mattins, Euensong and Dirges to your Masse,* 1.533 (which you might haue doone with as good reason and as much trueth:) otherwise, we had had al the Papists in Christendom promoted by one sentence of your Testament, to so suddaine and perfect knowledge, that they were able to vnderstand al your Latine seruice. That you found would seeme a wonder in the eyes of all men learned and vnlearned: and therefore you re∣straine the vnderstanding, first to the Masse, then to the ceremonies of the masse, then to the sense of these ceremonies, * 1.534 as when to stand, when to kneele, when to confesse, when to adore, when to come, when to depart; and all this no farther than may suffice for saluation, and not in al of them, but almost, in euery Catholike; or to say the trueth, you know not in whom.

Surely this is a deepe insight that al your Catholik•• (if they be not learned) haue in your masse: to confesse (if they could tell what) when they see the Clerk kneele by the Priests side; to adore, when they see the host and chalice ouer the Priests head; to stand, when the Priest chaungeth his deske from one end of the altar to an other (if they chaūce too see him,) to kneele,* 1.535 when the saūce bel ringeth; once a yeare to come to receiue, when masse is done and the priest in his Albe: & at other tunes to depart, when he whippeth off his vestiment. This is the best cunning that your formallest and forwardest Catholikes haue, if they be not learned in the Latine tongue: The rude & simple people of your side, they do as they see their neighbours, and that is all the skil they haue in your ceremonies; as for answering and saying Amen, they must pray for those that can, your pa∣rish Clerke can keepe his kewe by often vse, otherwise neither he, nor the most of your Priests vnderstand what they say. This is all the edification, your masse bringeth to the vnlearned hearers, & if this suffice for saluation, S. Paul was out of the way to prefer fiue words spoken in the church with vnderstan∣ding before ten thousand in a (strange and vnknowen) language.

Phi.

If the people say Amen, it is enough,

Theo.

If they know not what is said, they may not say Amen.

Phi.

That is your error.

Theo.

We are content to hold that error,* 1.536 so long as we haue the precise words of S. Paul for it. How shal he that supplieth the room of the vnlearned, say Amē, seeing he know∣eth not what thou saist? It is not enough to mark the gestures of him that saith masse, nor to heare the saunce bel ring, nor to follow the Quire when they sing Amen, the people must know what is said, before they may giue their consents; and therfore, except they vnderstand the praiers of the Church, well they may kneele, and stand, come and goe as often as they li••t, but Amen by S. Pauls Rule they may not answere.

Phi.

They could not in those daies answere Amen so wel as our hearers can, for that they had no such rites to direct them,* 1.537 when to say Amen; as we haue.

Theo.

As though it had beene an hard matter for the Apostle to haue willed the speaker to hold vp his finger, or giue some other signe at the end of his prai∣er, and all the people to say Amen: saue that the holy Ghost would prescribe not gestures for men to gaze at, as on stages; but words for them to heare, and

vnderstand, that the heart might be ioyned with the lips in praying vnto God, and perceiue the trueth of that which was spoken afore the tongue pronounced Amen.

Phi.

I tell you, * 1.538 it is not necessarie to vnderstand our praiers.

Theo.

I tell you, that if Satan himselfe were clothed in a friers weede, he could not lay a fairer foundation for impietie and Apostasie than this is.

Phi.

Neuer think to fray vs with words, we be no children, nor fooles.

Theo.

If you were, your sinne were the lesse, but nowe you are without excuse. It is the com∣maundement of God, it is the Apostles Doctrine, it is our Christian dutie; without it, the praiers, which we make, be fruitlesse, vaine and barbarous; and yet you say; it is not necessarie.

S. Paul hauing prescribed this Rule to the Churches of Corinth that no∣thing should be doone at their meetings,* 1.539 neither in preaching, nor praying, but that which might profite & edifie euen the vulgar and simpler sort, addeth, If any man think himselfe to be spirituall, let him acknowledge, that the things which I write vnto you, are the commandements of the Lord. The Ephe∣sians he teacheth to be filled with the spirit, and to sing and tune Psalmes in (their) harts to the Lord. Now the heart doth not sing, except it vnderstand. For the sound (or voice) of the hart is vnderstanding as S. Augustine very wel obserueth cōmenting vpon the psalmes of Dauid.* 1.540 Beatus populus qui intelli∣git iubilationem, Curramus ergo ad hanc beàtitudinem, intelligamus iubilationē, non eam sine intellectu fundamus. Blessed is the people that vnderstand what they sing. Let vs hasten to this blessednes, let vs vnderstand what we sing, let vs not poure forth songs that we vnderstand not. To * 1.541 what purpose is it, to sing and not to vnderstand what we sing; that our voice should chant it, & not our heart? Sonus enim cordis est intellectus. The sounde (or tune) of the heart is vnderstanding.

And shewing that this is not only a Christian dutie, which is a sufficient ne∣cessitie, but euen the plain condition of our Creation,* 1.542 that wee bee not like the beasts which sing they know not what, he saith:* 1.543 Hauing besought the Lord (by this Psalm) that he would clense vs from our secret (faults,) We ought to vnderstand what this meaneth, Vt humana ratione, non quasi auium voce cante∣mus; that we may sing with reason as men, and not chatter, like birdes. For Owsels, Parrets, Crowes, Pies, and such other birds are often taught by men to sound that they know not marie to know what they sing, is by Gods wil giuen not to birds but vnto men. Therefore deere brethren that which we haue soung with one consent of voice, we ought to know & perceiue with a cleare heart. So Chrysostome,* 1.544 I will pray with the spirit saith (Paul) but I will pray also with vnderstanding; I wil sing with the spirite, but I wil sing also with vnderstanding. Heereby the Apostle * 1.545 teacheth that we ought (in our praiers) to speake with our tongue, and with all to haue our minds vn∣derstand what is spoken. And Ambrose, If (the end of) your meaning be to edifie the Church, such things * 1.546 ought to be spoken (in your prayers and

blessings) as the hearers may vnderstand. For what profite commeth by this•• that any man should speak in a language which he alone vnderstandeth,* 1.547 and he that heareth, is no whit the better for it? Therefore such an one must keepe silence in the church, and let them speake, that may profite the hea∣rers.

* 1.548Idlely is that spoken, which is not vnderstoode, saith Cassiodorus. Non so∣lum cantantes, sed etiam intelligentes Psallere debemus, Nemo enim Sapienter quic∣quam facit quod non intelligit. We ought to sing the psalms not only with tune of voice, but also with vnderstanding (of heart▪). For no man doth any thing wifely, which he vnderstandeth not. The Bishops of Fraunce and Germanie assembled in Councel at Aquisgraine 816 yeres after Christ vnder Ludouike the Godly confesse the wordes of S. Paul bind vs to vnderstand the Psalmes which we sing in the Church.* 1.549 Those that sing to the Lorde in (his) Church ought to haue their vnderstanding goe with their voice, that the words of the Apostle may be verified, I will sing with the spirit, but I will also sing with vnderstanding. And, * 1.550 Let such be appointed in the Church to read & sing, that with the sweetnes of their reading and singing can affect the lear∣ned, and instruct the vnlearned; and let them seeke rather the edification of the people, than the popular and vaine ostentation (of their voices.)

* 1.551These Catholike fathers affirme the people ought to vnderstand the psalms and praiers of the church, you say they need not. Betweene these two doctrines there is asmuch difference as betweene daylight and darknes, and yet you will be Catholiks whosoeuer say nay: yea God himselfe commaundeth that neither exhortation nor supplication be made in the church, but such as may edifie the hearers, and bee vnderstood of the people: you both doe and teach the contrary, and yet you would be christians.

Phi.

* 1.552The simple sort can not vnderstand all Psalmes, nor scarce the learned, no though they be translated or read in knowen tongues men must not cease to vse them for all that, when they are knowen to containe Gods holy praises.

Theo.

Are you hi∣red to betray your own follie, or is the force of trueth so great, that minding to conuince vs,* 1.553 you confute your selues? The simple vnderstand not all Psalmes, nor scarce the learned: wee thinke you speake right: yet must not men cease to vse thē, since they containe the prayses of God; as true as the Gospell; but now Sirs, if the learned must vse them, whē they scarce vnderstand them, why may not the sim∣ple heare them, though they conceiue not al the mysteries of them?

Phi.

As good not heare them, as not vnderstand them.

Theo.

All parts of the Psalmes they doe not vnderstand; yet some they doe. Why then doe you barre them from all, since you dare not ••uouch them to bee ignorant of all? A∣gaine by continuall hearing them read,* 1.554 alleaged and expounded in the Church, they that are willing may easily increase their knowledge: why then doe you cut the people not onely from that they knowe, but also from that they might knowe, & from the meanes whereby to learne which is the high way to keepe them in ignorance, the mother of all errors?

Phi.

They will learne but litle,* 1.555 God knoweth.

Theo.

Graunt they would learne nothing▪ yet are you bound to follow that meanes which God hath left to instruct them if their dulnes and peruersenes of heart be such that they will not learne, the fault is theirs; not yours, their blood shal be on their own heads, you are discharged: where nowe by taking the comfort and instruction of their prayers from them, you force them to neglect al as neuer likely to come by the knowledge of any one word, and confirme them in their blindnes to your owne destruction, and their imminent daunger, if God bee not the more gra••ious to them.

Phi.

Prayers are not made to teache,* 1.556 or increase knowledge, but their speciall vse is to offer our heartes, desires and wants to God and this euery catholike doeth for his condition, whether hee vnderstande the woordes of his prayers or no.

Theoph.

Who tolde you that praiers are not made to teach, or increase our knowledge? The Psalmes of Dauid, what are they but prayers and prayses offered vn∣to God, and yet what Christian was euer so voyde of sense as to say, they doe not teach nor increase knowledge, or that they were not left vs to this ende and purpose, that they shoulde teach and instruct vs in thinges pertaining to our saluation? The prayers of the Godly throughout the scriptures, though they were vttered in their wants and necessities, yet were they * 1.557 written for our instruction. And if you were not as destitute of grace, as you be of truth, you woulde soone perceiue that religious and Godly prayers doe mightily teach both learned & vnlearned their dueties to God, and his mercies to them.

Phi.

In our prayers wee speake to God and not to men: and that leadeth vs to ••ay they were not made to teach or increase knowledge.

Theo.

The end of prayer in him that maketh it, is to aske at Gods handes that he lacketh, and to render thankes vnto God, * 1.558 for that hee hath receiued; but that the publike prayers of the Church do not first teach vs howe to pray, and next instruct vs in many and most points of truth, what to beleeue and confesse vnto God, were meeter for Turkes and Infidels to defend, than for such as you would seeme to be, I meane both learned and Christian men.

Howbeit the pitch of our question is this, whether they may be called prayers which wee make with our mouthes and not with our heartes: and if they may not, whether our heartes can pray without vnderstanding. These be the mat∣ters that here we striue for; and of these, the first is prooued by the whole course of the Scriptures: the seconde as well by the nature of man, as by the word of God.

That God reiecteth the mouth without the heart, as hypocrisie and no pietie, our Sauiour telleth you when he saith: * 1.559 O hypocrites Esay prophesied well of you in saying, this people draweth neere to me with their mouth, and ho∣noureth me with the lippes, but their heart is farre from me.

That our heart ioyneth not with our mouth, when our vnderstanding wan∣teth is euident, not onely by the scriptures which take the heart of man for his vnderstanding, but by the education of our nature Dauid resembling those mē,

that haue not vnderstanding, (what they say or doe,) to the * 1.560 horse and Mule: and ••usten allowing them, when they pray they knowe not what, no better place than among * 1.561 parrets and pies, which is no place for men, much lesse for those that would seeme to serue and honour God. And what can be plainer than that vnderstanding is the proper action and first motion of mans heart, which wanting in any thing that he doeth or sayeth, his heart is also wanting, since not an heart but an vnderstanding heart doeth make the difference betwixt man and beast.

Philand.

That is if they vnderstande not their owne woordes when they pray; but they may bee ignorant of the Priestes woordes, and not be parrets.

Theo.

You defende both; as well the priuate prayers of rude and simple men in the Latin tongue, as the publike prayers of the Church in the same language, though the people vnderstande not a worde, either what themselues, or what the Priest speaketh.

Philand.

* 1.562The West Church hath alwayes had her seruice in the latin tongue.

Theo.

It forceth not in what tongue shee had or haue her seruice, so the peo∣ple vnderstand it.

Philand.

In Latin, wee bee sure, shee had it.

Theo.

Then may you bee sure, the people vnderstood it.

Phi.

The one wee can prooue, and so can not you the other.

Theo.

Proue you the one, and wee will not misse much of the other.

Phi.

It is well neere a thousand yeeres, that our people which coulde nothing else, but barbarum frendere, did sing Alleluia, and not praise yee the Lorde. And longer agoe since the poore husbandman sang the same at the plough in other Countries. Hieron. tom. 1. epist. 58. And Sursumcorda, and kyrie eleyson, and the Psalmes of Dauid sung in Latin in the seruice of the primatiue Church haue the auncient and flat testimonies of Saint Cyprian, Saint Augustine, Saint Hierome, and others. Gregor. lib. 7. cap. 63. Cyprian. exposit. oratio. Dominica••, num. 13. August. ca. 13. de bono perseuerant. & de bono viduitat. cap. 16. and epistola. 178. Hieron. praefat. in Psalm. ad Sophron. August. de Catechiz. rud. cap. 9. de Doctrin. Christia. lib. 2. cap. 13. See epist. 10. August of Saint Hieroms Latin translation read in the Churches of Africa.

Theo.

Are you not out of breath with alleaging so much?

Phi.

Not a whit. You buzze in the peoples eares that our seruice in Latin is not aun∣cient: and that in the primatiue Church the people alwayes vnderstoode the tongue, wherein the Priest spake: looke heere to your vtter shame, howe wee reprooue you, and conuince you for lyars.

Theo.

Will you not sit downe with vs, and take such part as you bring?

Phi.

Keepe your curtesie till we need it.

Theo.

You well deserue it, though you will not haue it, as shall appeare be∣fore you depart.

You bring vs eleuen fathers to prooue that diuine Seruice hath been alwaies in the latin tongue throughout the West Church:* 1.563 if not one of them all proue any such thing, are you not woorthie to haue the whetstone?

Phi.

I say they doe.

Theo.

I say they doe not: and did they proue it, as they do not, the greatest

doubt is yet behind, & that is, the people might vnderstande the Latin tongue, and if that were true, you are farther off, for al these allegations, than euer you were.

Phi.

To saue your selues you will imagine any thing, bee it neuer so vnlikely or incredible.* 1.564 For trowe you that all the West partes vnderstood the Latin tongue?

Theoph.

In those places, where the Fathers whome you name, lyued and preached, the people vnderstoode the Latin tongue very wel.

Philand.

Some perhaps, that were trauelers or merchants.

Theo.

The common people of those Countries I say vnderstoode it.

Philand.

The ciuiler sort might haue a tast of it.

Theoph.

The basest and rudest that were amongst them vnderstoode the Latin tongue as well as their owne, if not better.

Phi.

I thought you woulde haue some such miraculous if not monsterous refuge.

Theo.

It is neither miracle nor monster, but a plaine and certain trueth. In Italie where Hierom and Gregorie were you doubt not but the vulgar people spake Latin, as wee doe English.

Phi.

It was their mother tongue.

Theoph.

Then might plough-men, crafts-men, yea weomen and children well sing the Psalmes, and heare the Scriptures reade in the Latin tongue because it was their natiue tongue, which they coulde not choose but vnderstand.

Philand.

But Africa, where Saint Cyprian and Saint Augustine were, had an other tongue of their owne, and therefore they coulde not doe the like.

Theo.

It was the Romanes policie to bring the barbarous Countries which they subdued, and were neere them, as much as was possible to vse the same Lawes and speake the same tongue which them-selues did, that they might the better like of their regiment.* 1.565 And so had they doone in Africa before S. Austen was borne: and the people of those partes about Carthage and Hippo, where Cyprian and Augustine were Bishoppes, though they were not so ex∣quisite in accents, declinations and constructions, as the Italians were, yet vnderstood they the Latin tongue better than they did their owne, by reason their owne was litle vsed, and the other wholy taken vp to bee spoken, as well as vnderstoode, by the meanest and yongest, amongst them, yea to bee taught their Infants euen in the Nources armes.

Of him-selfe, Saint Augustine confesseth that hee learned the Latin tongue in Africa where hee was borne,* 1.566 when hee was dandled of his nource, and among the pastimes of those that plaied with him, and laugh∣ed at him, whiles as yet hee was learning to speake: and that the common people which neuer went to schoole to learne, perfectly vnderstoode Latin, not only his sermons made to them,* 1.567 and his Psalmes made for them against the Donatists in the Latin tongue do clearely conuince, but very often in teaching the people hee giueth testimonie that they all vnderstoode the Latin better than the Punike tongue. Minding, saith hee, to haue the cause of the Donatists knowen to the basest, most ignorant, and the simplest among the people and by our meanes to sticke in their memories I made a Psalme, according

to the number and order of the Latin letters to be sung by them, beginning thus, Omnes qui gaudetis. And shewing that they vnderstood Latin better than their owne Countrie speach, which was Punike, he sayth: There is a knowen prouerbe in the Punike tongue, which I will vtter to you in Latine, be∣cause you doe not all vnderstande Punike,* 1.568 thereby noting that they all vn∣derstoode the Latin, but not the Punike, which yet was their Countrie lan∣guage.

Phi.

Wee will deale liberally with you for once: we graunt you this; what gaine you by it?

Theo.

Wee gaine nothing, but you loose more than you thinke,* 1.569 and as much as wee would wish.

Phi.

The losse is so great that I feele it not.

Theo.

You will tyme enough. Your Rhemish Testament to astonish the simple citeth nine authorities in a cluster that the seruice was alwaies in La∣tin throughout the West Church. Gregorie, li. 7. epi. 63. Cyprian. exposit. oratio. Dom. Hieron. praefat. in Psalm. ad Sophro. and sixe places of Augustine. Will it please you to take these nyne backe againe, as no way materiall or pertinent to that purpose, for which you bring them.

Phi.

You cast them backe in heapes, which is no course to answere them.

Theo.

In heapes they came, and in heapes let them goe: they neede no farther answering. Gregorie speaketh of the Citie of Rome, Hierom of the * 1.570men of his tongue, Cyprian and Austen of the seruice in Africa where the people perfectly vnderstoode the Latin tongue: or else of those places and Churches where the Latin tongue was vnderstoode, not na∣ming any nor including all the West partes, as you misreport them: but indefinitely speaking of such as vsed and vnderstoode the Romane lan∣guage.

Phi.

* 1.571That is it which wee say, the Romane language was vsed throughout the West Church.

Theoph.

But none of these Fathers say so besides you. They doe not specifie in what Countries or partes of the West it was vsed: but speake indistinctly of such as vsed it.

Phi.

That, wee say, was throughout the West Church.

Theo.

If you were as able to prooue it as you bee to say it, you might doe your selues some good.

Phi.

Wee are.

Theoph.

You are not.

Phi.

Gregorie sayde of* 1.572 our people which coulde nothing else but barba∣rum frendere, that a thousand yeres afore out daies, they did sing Alleluia, and not prayse ye the Lord. And longer agoe the poore husbandmen * 1.573 sang the same at the plough in other Countries.

Theoph.

Is Alleluia latin?

Philand.

No, it is Hebrewe, and signifieth in English as much as, Praise yee the Lorde: but yet in this Realme at that tyme they sang Alleluia,* 1.574 and not Prayse ye the Lord.

Theo.

That hath some shewe of an argument for the Hebrewe seruice, to haue beene then vsed in this, and other Countries, but not for the Latin.

Phi.

As though the Saxons vnder∣stoode Hebrewe.

Theo.

Euen as well as they did Latin, and in Gregories woordes there is some appearance of proofe for the Hebrewe, for the Latin there is none; except you will reason thus, they sang Alleluia, ergo all the rest of their seruice was in Latin.

Phi.

Alleluia is no English: ergo they had not

their Seruice in the English tongue.

Theo.

And Alleluia is no Latin, ergo, by your owne logike, they had not their seruice in Latin.

Phi.

You erre of ignorance. The Latin Church retayned Amen, and Alle∣luia, notwithstanding they were Hebrewe, in her diuine seruice.

Theo.

God graunt you erre not of malice. Did no Church else besides the Latin retaine those Hebrewe woordes in their publike Psalmes and seruice?

Phi.

None but Greeke and Latine. And since those whome Gregorie sent to conuert the Sa∣xons could themselues no Greek, we conclude they deliuered the Saxons their Church-seruice in Latin.

Theo.

Your conclusion is like your antecedent, that is not one true woord in either. Did not all Nations in their diuine seruice keepe those two woords Amen, and Alleluia?

Phil.

They did; for so Saint * 1.575 Augustine auoucheth, but all nations besides the Hebrewes had their Church-seruice in Greeke or in Latin.

Theoph.

Doeth Saint Augustine auouche that?

Phi.

That is ap∣parent without any proofe.

Theoph.

It is apparent follie, to presume that which you shoulde prooue, to bee manifest without any proofe.

Phi.

Can you shew the contrary?

Theo.

Who taught you that order of reasoning, when you fa••le in prouing your premisses, to cast the burden vpon others to disproue that, which you should prooue?

And yet goe no farther than this very place of Saint Augustine which your selues alleage;* 1.576 and you shall see that all other Nations preserued these two woordes in their barbarous languages, as well as the Romanes did in theirs. Saint Austens report is this, Sciendum est, Amen & Alleluia, quod nec latino, nec barbaro licet in suam linguam transferre, Hebraeo cunctas gentes vocabu∣lo decantare. Wee must vnderstande that all Nations doe sing Amen and Alleluia in the Hebrewe tongue, which (woordes) neither the Latin, nor the Barbarian may chaunge into their tongues, If the Barbarians might haue no part nor woorde of the diuine Seruice in their seuerall tongues, as you say, what needed a speciall exemption of these two woordes (and no more) as vnlawfull to bee translated into their languages? In that these might not, it importeth the rest might and were: and also that eche Countrie, (in what tongue so euer, Romane, or barbarous, they had their Seruice,) kept these two Hebrewe woordes Amen and Alleluia vntouched & * 1.577vntranslated for a certaine significance in the words them-selues, and a reue∣rence to the tongue whence they were taken.

Philand.

That the Saxons sang Alleluia wee bee sure by this report of Gregorie, but that they had their seruice in the Saxon tongue, you shall ne∣uer prooue.* 1.578

Theoph.

Much lesse can you prooue by this place of Gregorie, which is your intent, that they had their Seruice in the La∣tin tongue: for thus hee sayth, not in the sixt chapter as you note, but in the eighth of his seuen and twentieth booke vpon Iob. Ecce lingua Britanniae quae nihil aliud nouerat quam barbarum frendere, ••amdudum in diuinis laudibus He∣••raeum caepit Alleluia resonare. Beholde the tongue of Britannie, which

could do nothing but ye all out a barbarous noyse, now of late hath begun in the prayses of God to sing the Hebrewe Halleluia.

If you take the tongue of Britanie for the speach of the Saxons, then inha∣biting this land, as it may well signifie, since there is good difference between the tongue of Britannie,* 1.579 and the tongues of the Britanes; and lingua Britan∣niae is very hard latin for linguae Britannorum: then it is cleare by Gregories cō∣fession that the Brittish tongue was vsed of the people euen at that tyme to sing the prayses of God in their Churches: the Hebrewe Hallelu ia (and not the Latin seruice) being preserued amongst them in their barbarous language, as it was amongst all other Nations by Saint Augustines te∣stimonie, were they Grecians, Romanes, or Barbarians. If you will haue it stand not for the speach of the countrie but for the mouthes and lippes of the men them-selues, Hallelu ia, they learned, because it might not be chaun∣ged; the rest of the Latine seruice, neither they coulde learne, as knowing no tongue but their owne: nor the Romanes could teach, as hauing no skil in the Saxon tongue: and therefore if the people sang any prayses at all vnto God, as Gregorie sayth they did, they must sing them in their mother tongue, for o∣ther tongue they had none.

Philand.

Coulde they not learne Latin, as well as Hebrewe?

Theoph.

Both a like; but that one woorde, as Amen, or Hallelu ia, is soone learned, the Latin Psalmes and seruice are no way possible for them to learne or remem∣ber.* 1.580

Philand.

Saint Hierom sayth the poore husbandmen sang it at the plough in other Countries.

Theoph.

What are his woordes?

Philand.

Quocunque te verteris, arator stiuam tenens Allelu ia decantat. Whither soeuer thou turne thy selfe, the husbandman holding his plough, singeth Allelu ia. Why did you doubt of them?

Theo.

Because I find them not tom. 1. epi. 58. as you quote them, except you haue quotations, as you haue religions, by your selues.

Philand.

Well, these bee Saint Hieroms woordes.

Theoph.

I knowe they are, but you are as wide from the true constering as you were from the true quoting of them, if you bee not wider.

Phi.

Howe can that bee?

Theoph.

What Countries spake Saint Hierom of when hee sayde, Quocunque te verteris, whither soeuer thou turne thy selfe?

Philand.

Of other Countries.

Theoph.

Of what other Countries?

Philand.

Of all o∣ther Countries, and specially of the West partes, where the latin seruice was.

Theoph.

So you woulde enforce his woordes, but you doe him the more wrong.

Philand.

Are not his woordes plaine, Quocunque te verteris, turne whither thou wilt, the husbandman holding his plough, singeth Allelu ia?

Theoph.

In deede his woordes are plainely peruerted by you. For Hierom speaketh not of the West, but of the East; not of Countries, but of a poore village; not of Latinists, but of such as were borne and bred in Iurie, where the natural speach of the place was Hebrewe.

Phi.

Proue that to bee S. Hieroms meaning.

Theoph.

They bee his woordes both before and after, and those so plaine, that I maruaile you

could misse them.* 1.581 In Christi vero (vt supra diximus) villula, tota rusticitas, & ex∣tra Psalmos silentium est. Quocunque te veteris arator stiuam tenens decantat Aal∣lelu ia. Sudans messor Psalmis se auocat, & curua attondens vite falce vinitor ali∣quid Dauidicum canit. Haec sunt in hac prouincia carmina. In the village of Christ (as we haue said before) there is nothing but rusticitie, & silence, except it be in singing of psalmes. Turne whither you wil (in this village) the husband∣man holding his plough (continually) singeth Allelu ia. The mower when he sweateth (and is wearie) refresheth himselfe with psalmes. The Gardi∣ner as he dresseth his vine with his hooke, hath some peece of Dauid in his mouth. These are the songes of this prouince (or place.) What word or title is here for the seruice in the latine toung, except you thinke that as the Pope claimeth to bee Lord of the whole worlde, so euery Countrie throughout the worlde spake then nothing but Latine; which were a merrie conceite to make sporte with, if there were nothing looked for at your handes but laughter.

Phi.

In sifting our authorities you take hold of euery nice and curious point, which with good conscience we did and may despise.

Theo.

Call you that a good conscience to muster out eleuen authorities (as ancient and flat testimo∣nies) for defence of your errour against the woordr of God, and the church of Christ, and not one of them any way respecting that which you should & would seeme to proue? That no Nation in the Primatiue church, East, West, North nor South, had their diuine seruice in a tongue not vnderstood of themselues, is our assertion.* 1.582 You shew that in Italie and Africa (where the people perfectly vnderstood the Romane tongue) they had their seruice in Latine, and that the barbarous of this Realme, and husbandmen of Bethleem sang Allelu ia, which S. Augustine saith, all nations did, yea the Barbarians as well as the Ro∣manes, without translating that, or Amen, into their barbarous languages. Hence you collect, the seruice alwaies in Latine throughout the West church, and paint that note by the side of your booke to make the simple beleeue, those places which are found in your text to proue it to be true, though not one of thē whom you cite, affirm or mention any such thing.* 1.583 Whether this be (to vse your owne wordes) great ignorance (of Iesuites) or greater guilefulnes, so vntruly and peruersly to wrest the fathers, and whether you can be catholikes, that haue no better ground for your Latine and vnknowen seruice within this Reame, let the Reader iudge.

Phi.

Augustine our Apostle brought into (this Realme) the seruice in the La∣tine tongue:* 1.584 and there are well neere a thowsand yeares past since he came. And therefore S. Bede saith, (lib. 1. hist. Ang. cap. 1.) that being foure diuerse vulgar languages in our Countrie, the Latine was made common to them all.

Theo.

You thought it long belike before you made vp the ful dozen of per∣uerted and misconstered authorities. You abuse Bede as you doe the rest, and no maruell to see you so bold with him when you haue ventered on so many.

Phi.

Doth he not say this Iland had foure diuerse languages of their owne, and the

Latine (which was the fift) was made common to them all?* 1.585

Theo.

Not by hauing their seruice in Latine, but by meditating, and searching the Scri∣ptures, a number in euery of those foure Nations had gotten the knowledge of the Latine tongue.

Phi.

Then the Scriptures were not in any of those lan∣guages, and consequently neither the Psalmes, nor Lessons which are ne∣cessary partes of the Church Seruice.

Theo.

Reason better or hold your peace, you doe but wast time about trifles. Bedes wordes are:* 1.586 Haec in prae∣senti, quinque gentium linguis vnam eandemque summae ver••tatis, & verae subli∣mitatis scientiam scrutatur & confitetur, Anglorum videlicet, Britonum, Scoto∣rum, Pictorum & Latinorum, quae meditatione Scripturarum caeteris omnibus est facta communis: This Iland at this present searcheth and confesseth one and the verie same knowledge of the hiest veritie and truest sublimitie with the tongues of fiue Nations, to wit, the Saxons, Britons, Scots, Picts, and Latines, whose tongue by the meditation of the scriptures, is become com∣mon to all the rest.

* 1.587Meditation of the scriptures in all mens eares saue yours, is the diligent and often perusing of them to get the right vnderstanding of them, and not the Church Seruice as you would secretly inferre: neither doth Bede deny that the Scriptures were hearde or reade in the other foure tongues, which were proper to the foure Nations of this Iland, but rather affirmeth it when he saith this Countrie searched and confessed one and the very same knowledge of the highest truth, with the tongues of fiue Nations: foure of them being the British, Saxon, Scottish and Pi••tish tongue,* 1.588 in which also they searched & confessed the knowledge of the true God, though the deeper and better lear∣ned of them in euery of those Nations, for an exacter kinde of meditating and studying the Scriptures, gate them some skill in the Latine tongue: wherein the Scriptures were more sincerely written, and more substantially hand∣led than they coulde bee in any of the other tongues amongest the Sa∣xons, Scots or Britons in that raw and rude worlde, so soone vppon their con∣uersion to the faith, and long desolation before of learning, religion and good manners.

Phi.

The Latine tongue was common to them all.* 1.589

Theo.

Not to euery parti∣cular man amongest them, but to some speciall men in those foure Nations that were willing and able to meditate the Scriptures. And had it beene com∣mon to them al, that is to euery one of them, as you would presse it, that con∣struction helpeth you nothing at al. For then the people of this land, being able to meditate the Scriptures in the latine toung, might verie well haue their s••r∣uice in the latine tongue, because it was a knowen tongue and such as they rea∣dily vnderstood: but I thinke the other of the twaine the more likely, and ther∣fore I rest on it as on the truer, though neither damnifie vs, as touching this question, the worth of a dodkin.

Phi.

It were absurd to thinke that euery of the vulgar sort vnderstoode the Latine tongue.

Theo.

Then is it more absurde, when Bede saith The Latine

tongue was made common to all the other (foure) tongues (of this Land) by the meditation of the Scriptures: to interprete that of the vulgar sort, and to refer it to the church seruice as you do.

Phi.

You haue skanned our proofes at your pleasure: but where all this while are yours, that any christian Nation had their publike Seruice in a bar∣barous tongue? I count all tongues barbarous besides the three learned toungs, which are Latine, Greeke, and Hebrew.

Theo.

In what toung ech Nation had their Seruice, is nowe harde to bee knowen so many hundrethes yeares after, and needlesse to bee discussed. For when wee once founde it a rule laide downe by Sainct Paul that All thinges (in the Church) should be done to edification, as well praying, singing, and thankesgiuing, as preaching & expounding the word, which he calleth prophesieng; and that no man is edified by that hee vnderstandeth not:* 1.590 and also that the seruice in those two places and churches, whereof we haue any records left, was common to Priest and peo∣ple, and parted betweene them, by verses and respondes, the whole people, men, women, and children, singing the Psalmes, answering to euery part of the ser∣uice, and saying Amen to the prayers that were made in all their names: & lastly that the catholike fathers in their seuerall times and cures taught the people should, and witnes the people did vnderstande the publike prayers of the church; what neede wee seeke further for barbarous Nations and tongues, whereof we haue no monumen••••, & wherein no famous or learned men wrote, whose labors are come to our age or knowledge?

Phi.

I thought you would shrinke when wee came to the quicke: you loue to picke holes in other mens coates, but not to shew your owne. Belike it is so rot∣ten it will not indure the handling.

Theo.

Let the coate alone and come to the case. Wee haue the flatte commaundement of God that all thinges (in the Church) shoulde bee doone to edification: and the Apostles inferment that the simple man is not edified, when hee vnderstandeth not what is said. Your shiftes were, that S. Paul spake not of the church prayers, nor of the lear∣ned tongues. Those wee haue refelled, and are nowe come to the practise of Christes church: which taking her direction from S. Pauls doctrine in this place,* 1.591 framed her publike prayers in such order that the Pastour and people with ioyntlie and interchangeably blessed and praied eche with other and either for other: not houlding it enough for the simple to say Amen they knewe not to what, but requiring and appointing their deuoute, di∣stinct and intelligent answeres, confessions, blessinges and thankesgiuinges as well in the ministration of the Lordes supper, as in other partes of their publike seruice.* 1.592

The manner of their seruice, where the whole church did with one heart and one voice, sing praises to God, and make their common supplications vnto him, is the best exposition that may bee brought for the true construction of Sainct Pauls wordes: and therein the auncient and Catholike church of Christ, go∣eth expressely with vs and directly against you, as appeareth by all the

fathers that euer wrate of these thinges, by the very sight and view of their li∣turgies, by your owne authorities which here you abuse, yea by the partes and prayers of your Masse-booke prescribed for the people to requi••e the priest with, and yet remaining in force and dayly vse amongest you.

In your Apostolike constitutions, written by no worse man, as you say, than by Clemens successour to Peter and fellow labourer in the Gospell with h••m;* 1.593 this order of seruice at the Lords table was prefixed to the whole Church, were they Hebrewes, Greekes, Romanes, Barbarians or whatsoeuer if they were Christians. The Bishop shall say, the grace of almighty God, the loue of our Lord Iesus Christ, and the communion of the holy spirit be with you al. And all (the people) shall answere with one voice, And with the spirit. A∣gain let the Bishop say, Lift vp your harts, & all let answere, We lift them vp vnto the Lord. And againe the Bishop: Let vs giue thankes vnto the Lord, and all shall answere, It is meete and right so to doe. And at the ende of that praier it followeth, Et omnis populus simul dicat, and let all the people with one voice say, holy, holy, holy, Lord of hostes: The heauen and earth are full of thy glory: blessed art thou for euer, Amen. And * 1.594 so after. Let the Bishop say, the peace of God be with you all. Let all the people answere, and with the spirite. * 1.595 Let the Bishop admonish the people with these wordes, holy thinges for holy persons. And let the people answere, one holy, one Lord, one Christ be blessed for euer to the glory of God the father. Osanna to the sonne of Dauid. Blessed is hee that commeth in the name of the Lord: the Lord (our) God & hath appeared vnto vs. Osanna in the hiest. If in euerie Church the people were to know when and what to answere in their diuine ser∣uice, and with many full and whole sentences to confirme and requite the Bi∣shops prayers and blessinges: it is euident they were to vnderstand their owne and the Bishoppes speech: which in a straunge and vnknowen tongue, such as is vsed in your churches, it is not possible for simple men and women to doe.

Phi.

You impugned these constitutiōs but euen now, as none of the Apostles.

Theo.

But you receiue them & vrge them as Apostolike, and therefore against you such proofes are pregnant.

* 1.596And so are the Liturgies, that is, the church prayers which are vnder the names of Iames, Basill, and Chrysostom: in which the like order of praying and blessing, by course is appointed both for Prieste and people. Let the places be seene; if they be not obuious to euery mans eyes, let me be rebuked of a bould vntrueth.

Phi.

Your selues admit not those Liturgies.

Theo.

Wee doe not thinke that either Basil or Chrysostom would take vpon them to make a new forme of church seruice, if S. Iames the Apostle had doone it before them: neither•• was the Greeke church to seeke of her seruice till their times, or to•• change it at their pleasures: yet the thinges which wee alleage out of these Liturgies haue the manifest testimonies as well of Basill and Chrysostom, as of other catholike

Fathers, both Greeke and Latine in their vnforged & vndistrusted writinges.

Chrysostom,* 1.597 expressing the maner of the church in his time, sayth: Euen in the prayers (of the church) a man may see the people (helpe or) offer much togither (with the priest) for those that are possessed with wicked spi∣rits & for the repētants. Cōmunes enim preces à sacerdote & ab illis fiunt, & omnes vnam dicunt orationem. For the priest and the people make their praiers in common, and they all vtter the same wordes in their petitions to God. A∣gaine when we haue excluded them out of the church that may not be par∣takers of the holy table and fall a fresh to prayer, we all prostrate our selues togither, and all rise vp togither. When peace is to be imparted wee all sa∣lute one an other. In the very same dreadfull mysteries the priest prayeth for the people, and the people pray for the priest. For their answere, And with the spirit, hath none other meaning. Ea quae sunt Eucharistia, id est, gra∣tiarum actionis communia sunt omnia. The prayers of the Eucharist, that is of the thankesgiuing (at the Lordes table) * 1.598 are all common. For the priest doeth not onely giue thankes, but * 1.599all the people. Out of the which num∣ber were none excepted neither men, women, nor children, as Basill shortly but fully decribeth the sound of the whole church praying togither. If the sea bee good and beautifull in the sight of God, how much more beawtifull is such an assemblie of the church as we haue here, in which the mingled soūd of men, women, and children making their (common) prayers ascendeth vnto our God, as the noise of waues beating against the bankes.

The Latine church obserued the same, as Iustinus reporting the order of the christian assemblies in his time witnesseth. On the day which is cal∣led sunday, all that are in townes or villages meete togither in one place where the writinges of the Apostles and Prophetes are read, as the hower permitteth vs: when the reader ceaseth the pastour warneth and exhorteth vs to imitate the good thinges that haue beene read vnto vs: Then rise wee all and iointly make our prayers: after the which ended, bread and wine with water are brought (to the place) & he that is chiefe among vs maketh his prayers and giueth thankes in the best manner hee can. * 1.600 Perfectis preci∣bus & gratiarum actione, populus omnis qui adest benedicit, dicens, Amen; At the end of his prayers and thankes, all the people that are present, do blesse and say Amen: Amen in Hebrew signifieth as much as God graunt it may be so.

S. Augustine noting the vse of the church in his dayes, saith: * 1.601 We cal vpon one God, we heare one Gospel (read,) we sing one psalme, we answere one Amen, wee sound out one Hallelu ia. * 1.602The Church, sayeth Sainct Am∣brose, is often very fitly compared to the Sea: which at first rusheth in the praiers of the whole people, as it were in the flowing of hir waues, and then soundeth with the respondes of psalmes, and with the singing of men, women, maydens and young boyes, much after the roaring of (mighty) waters.

The reason of this general ioyning in praier among the christiās Leo wel de∣clareth in these words, * 1.603 Most ful forgiuenes of sins is obtained, whē the whol church pronounceth (euery man) the same praier, & the same confession. For if the Lord haue promised to performe that which two or three of the godly consenting togither shal aske, what shall bee denied to an assembly of many thowsands beseeching in one spirit with one accord? which was Tertul mea¦ning lōg before, whē he said of al christiās: We meet in cōpanies & assemblies, that comming * 1.604 as it were an army (or in troups) vnto god, we may e••ē vrge him with our praiers. Haec vis Deo grata est: this force is acceptable vnto God. In this sort it cōtinued 600. yeares as appeareth by Isidore. Oportet vt quando psallitur, psallatur ab omnibis; cū oratur, o••etur ab omnibus: quādo lectio legitur, facto silētio aequè audiatur ab omnibus. Ideo & diaconus clara voce silentiū admonet, vt siue dū psallitur siue dum lectio pronunciatur, ab omnibus vnitas cōseruetur, vt quod om∣nibus praedicatur, ab omnibus equaliter audiatur. This must of necess••ty be kept (in the church seruice) that whē they sing, al sing: whē they pray, al pray: whē the lessō is read with silēce, it be heard alike * 1.605 of al. For therfore the deacō cōman∣deth silēce that whether they sing •••• read, al may do the like, & that which is spokē to al should equally be heard of al. Yea Charls y^e great 800. yeres after christ took order by his lawes not only that y^e people shold say certain parts of y^• seruice w^t the priest, but that the pastors should preach it to bee necessary for the simple to vnderstād their praiers, y^• euery man might know what he demāded a•• the haudes of God. Glory be to the father, (& to the son & to the holy ghost, &c.) shalbe sung of al mē with al honor; & the priest with the people of God shal sing with one voice, as the angels do, holy, holy, holy.* 1.606 (Lord God of sa∣both) The bishops shal diligētly look that the priests throughly perceiue the praiers of their masse, & both thēselues vnderstād the Lords praier & preach that al must vnderstand it, that euery man may know what he asketh of god.

So Iustiniā before him could cōmand that al Bishops & priests (within the Romane Monarchy) shold celebrate the sacred oblatiō (of the Lords supper) and the praiers vsed in baptisme; not in secret but with a (loude and) cleare voice, that the minds of the hearers might be stirred vp with more deuotion to expresse the praises of the Lord God. For so saith he, the Apostle teacheth 1. Corinth.* 1.607 If thou blesse with the spirit, how shal he that keepeth the place of the priuat (or lay) mā, say Amen at thy thanksgiuing vnto God: because he wotteth not what thou saiest? Thou giuest thanks wel, but the other is not e∣dified. And in his epist. to the Rom. With the hart we beleeue vnto righteous¦nes, & with the mouth we confesse vnto saluation. For which respects it is fit, that those praiers which are vsed in the sacred oblatiō, as wel as others, shold be pronoūced by the bishops & priests with a clear voice: & let the religious bishops & priests know that if they neglect so to do, they should yeeld an ac∣count in the dreadful iudgement of the great God for it, and wee hauing in∣formation of them will not leaue them vnpunished.

But what need we elder or other testimonies? your Masse-book, which at this

day you depend so much on,* 1.608 cōuinceth that the people at first did, & stil should vn∣derstād the praiers which y^• priest maketh euē at the very altar & sacrifice it self, those being thinges of the greatest secrecy & most sublimity that you haue.

Phi.

Can you persuade vs that our Masse-book maketh w^t you?

The.

Choose whether you wil be perswaded or no: but you must needes be abashed to see the wordes of your own booke fight against your error.

Phi.

Faith then our luck is bad.

Theo.

It is euen so bad if it be not worse: that is, if your harts do not bark against you for vpholding this vnfruitfull praier.

Phi.

I am glad you come nowe to holde by the Missale.

Theo.

We hold by the precept of the liuing & euerlasting God, & yet we may proue by your own footsteps that you tread awry.

Phi.

We wil be∣leeue it, whē we see it.

The.

You shal soone see it: if that wil suffice you. Whē you speake to men do you not wast your words in vaine, if they vnderstand not what you say?* 1.609

Phi.

In our prayers we speake to God, & not to men, & therefore wee see no reason why euery mā should looke to vnderstand that we say.

Theo.

But whē you speak to men, & not to God, do you not both abase your toūgs & delude their ears if they vnderstand you not?

Phi.

If we speake to them, I grant they should vnderstād vs, or else we loose our labor, & they no whit the wiser.

The.

S. Austē wil tel you, There is no cause at al why (you) should speake, if they vnderstād not what (you) say, for whose sakes (you) speake. The end of your speaking vn∣to mē, is to let them vnderstand what you would aduise or aduertise thē of: that if they do not, you speake in the aire,* 1.610 as S. Paul saith, & do them no good.

Phi.

I thinke so.

Theo.

Your priest is appointed by the canon of your Masse, to say before hee ascend to the altar, * 1.611I confesse to God almighty, to blessed Mary, to al Saints & to you (brethren) that I haue sinned very much in thought, deed & word. * 1.612Therefore I beseech holy Mary, al Saints of God, & * 1.613 you (brethren) to pray for me. When he commeth to his sacrifice he is likewise to say, Pray ye brethrē & sistren for me, that my sacrifice & yours may bee acceptable to the Lord our God: & euery where when he prayeth he must say, * 1.614 The Lord with you, let vs pray.

To ech of these the people haue their answers prescribed them what they must say, which euen at this day are parts of your seruice, to the confession they must answere, * 1.615 Almighty God be merciful vnto thee, & forgiue thee all thy sinnes, deliuer thee from al euil, preserue & confirme thee in that which is good, & bring thee to life euerlasting. To the oblation they must reply, The grace of the holy ghost lighten thine hart & thy lips, & the Lord receiue in good part this sacrifice of praise at thine handes for our sinnes and offences. Before consecration, when he biddeth them, Lift vp their harts, their answere must be▪ we lift them vp vnto the Lord:* 1.616 & when he saith, Let vs giue thanks to the Lord our God, they must pronoūce, it is meet & right so to do. The priest blessing, the Lord be with you, the people must requite with the like, in answe∣ring, and with thy spirit.* 1.617

And though you haue excluded the people and set a Parish Clerke to

make these answers, and willed the Priest for verie shame to say some of them * 1.618closely: yet know you that these wordes remaining yet in your Masse-bookes are manifest witnesses against you before God and man, that the prayers of the church shoulde bee common to Priest and people, and so were, when your Masse was first ordained: and that not onely the prayers made by the whole Congregation are more auaileable with God, than the priuate deuotion of any Priest (which of a certaine pride in your selues you will not now acknowledge) but that you mocke the people of God, & with your own toungs condemne your own doings, when in your Seruice you will them euery where to pray with you and for you, and yet vtter it in such a tongue, as they can neither vnderstand what you or themselues do say.

Phi.

By the gestures and actions which wee vse, the people vnderstand our meaning.* 1.619

Theo.

Then should your Masse haue consisted of nothing, but of actions and gestures: where nowe your speaking vnto them, when they vnder∣stood you not, is very ridiculous.

Phi.

We speake to them but seldome; and if they doe not, as wee will them, for lacke of vnderstanding vs, the rest of our seruice may not bee misliked, for so much as therein wee speake to God and not to men.

Theo.

The whole is superfluous, if not iniurious to God and man.

Phi.

Why so?

Theo.

In all your publike prayers, though you direct your wordes vnto God, yet you vtter them for their sakes that be your hearers. God needeth not your voice, hee searcheth, and therefore vnderstandeth the very se∣cretes of your heartes, and you pray most effectually to him, when your hearts * 1.620 speake, and your lippes keepe silence. God, sayth Augustine, * 1.621 seeketh not to be instructed or remembred by our speach, to giue vs that which wee de∣sire. Where thinkest thou is offered the sacrifice of righteousnesse, but in the temple of the minde, and chambers of the heart?

Phi.

That is true, but yet we may vse our mouth in praying as well as our heart.

Theo.

You may if you will, but you neede not, except you list.

Phi.

Yeas, the Priest is the mouth of the church: and therefore hee must speake.* 1.622

Theo.

The church needeth neither mouth, nor speech to God. He knoweth euerie mans heart as well as ones: but in respect of themselues, speech is necessary that they may be kindled, directed and confirmed, ech by others voice in their common prayers and supplications vnto God.

Phi.

The Priest offereth their prayers vnto God for them.

Theo.

God will not haue vs beleeue or pray by a substitute, but in our persons, we are not too good to do him that seruice.

Phi.

* 1.623The people pray, but by the Priests mouth.

Theo.

Then must he speak: or else he can not be their mouth.

Phi.

He must: otherwise how shall they know whether he pray or no?

Theo.

And when they vnderstand him not, they bee no surer what hee doeth, than if hee kept silence.

Phi.

When they heare his voice they suppose he prayeth, though they know not what he sayeth.

Theo.

They may wel suppose it, for they know it not, and so may they doe, when the Priest keepeth silence. Supposals are soone made, if God required no more at our handes.

But by your confession that the Priest must speak in the prayers of the Church, wee proue, the people must vnderstand what is spoken. For GOD needeth not any mans speech:* 1.624 the end why the Priest speaketh, is to guide the peoples heartes in their petitions to God, and to haue their consentes that the praiers of the church may proceede from them all. If that ende want, as in a tongue not vnderstood it doth, in vaine doeth the Priest speake, and the people hearken vnto that which they no way conceiue, or haue knowledge of. What needeth speech, that is, the sound of words, saith Augustine, when we pray, vnlesse perhaps, as the priests do for the signification of their minds: not that God, but that men should heare, and through (their) rehearsall by consen∣ting (to their wordes) be stirred (or moued) to depend on God.

The Priest therefore in his church seruice,* 1.625 though he direct his heart to God, yet doeth hee open his mouth for their sakes that are present, that they may be both kindled and guided by the sounde and sense of his wordes to ioyne with him, in offering to GOD one agreement of heart and voice, which is the cause why publike prayer was ordained. And euen at this day in your Masse the Priest speaketh not one worde in his owne person, but in euery praier both warneth the people to pray with him, and speaketh in their persons as well as in his own.* 1.626 For example: Let vs praie, let vs giue thanks, we be∣seech, we offer, we praise, we blesse, we adore, which argueth that at the first institution of your owne seruice the people did, & were bound to marke and vnderstand the Priests wordes, & with answering Amen to acknowledge and conf••••m his prayers to be their desires and requestes vnto God, though now you shut vp their eares & mouthes that they can neither vnderstand you, nor knowe what to answere you, but only open their eyes to beholde your gestures, as if it were not a place for praier, but a stage for dumbe shewes, to delight the senses.

Phi.

You make certain petite reasons against vs for the seruice in the vulgar tongue: but had they beene sufficient, do you thinke the church of Christ would haue taken vp the contrary custome for these fifteene hundreth yeares?

Theo.

I thinke shee would not, & by her church seruice, I proue shee did not.

Phi.

You proue the people vnderstood the seruice, & by course answered, and consented to that which was sayde in the church, but this doth not proue that the prayers were in any other tongue besides the Latine, Greeke or Hebrewe, which is our assertion.

Theo.

This is it which I tolde you before, that finding the people did vnderstand the diuine seruice in the Primatiue church:* 1.627 and that no praiers were counted publike, vnlesse they had the consent & answere of the whole mul∣titude: we neede not care in what toungs this was done: The Hebrew, Greeke Latine,* 1.628 Armenian, Indian, Persian, Syrian, Gothian tong••es, are they not all alike to God? Must not barbarous Nations be edified by their praiers as well as the ciuiler or learneder sort of men? There is no respect of persons with God, is there of tongues?

Phi.

The three learned tongues were dedicated in our Sauiours crosse, the

rest were not.

Theo.

* 1.629Who set vp those titles on the crosse: the Lord which suf∣fered, or Pilate which condemned him vniustly to death?

Philan.

What though Pilate set them vp?

Theo.

If Pilate were a wicked Pagan and his fact wic∣kedder in procla••ming the Sonne of God for a Traitour and an aspirer to the Crowne of Iurie, in Hebrewe, Greeke and Latine letters, what reason can this be why God will not, or shoulde not bee serued in any other tongue, but in one of these? Haue you no better examples than Caiphas to vphold the Popes Tribunall; and Pilate to commend your Latine seruice?

Phi.

Yeas, we haue the church of God.

Theo.

Then why conceale you that, and bring foorth Pi∣lates impietie to prescribe a rule in the church of God against the Apostle?

Phi.

The tongues were good, though his fact were euill.

Theo.

And dare you say that any tongue in the world is not good?

Phi.

Good they bee all, but not so good as any of these to serue God in.

Theo.

Recoile you back againe to that errour, that God is an accepter of tongues?

Phi.

You call it an errour.

Theo.

So is it: and that a verie grosse errour. For God accepteth the zeale of the heart, not the sound of the mouth: and though to vs there is some difference in the perfection and pleasantnesse of the speech; to God in deuotion of praier there is none.* 1.630 He, saith Origen, that is Lord of all tongues, heareth those that praie in any tongue. For God the gouernour of the whole world is not as one, that hath chosen the Greeke, or some o∣ther barbarous tongue,* 1.631 and is ignorant of the rest, or neglecteth those that speake vnto him in any other tongue. And since he hath made all tongues, & requireth not the sounde of our mouthes for himselfe, but for our selues, it is wilfull folly to say that prayers bee sanctified or accepted to God in one toung, and not in all tongues alike.

Phi.

Still I say * 1.632the Church of God hath no such custome: which Saint Paul himselfe laieth downe for a sure direction in all church matters.

Theo.

Take you the negligent abuse of late yeares in some places for the custome of Gods church? Or doe you thinke it pietie to pretende any custome of your owne a∣gainst the commaundement of God?

Phi.

Any thing which the whole Church doeth practise and obserue throughout the world,* 1.633 to dispute thereof, as though it were not to bee doone, is most insolent madnesse, as S. Augustine verie notably saith in his 118. epi.

Theo.

S. Augustin doth not say, that you may prefer custom before the Scriptures: or change the auncient custome of Christes church in making her praiers in a vulgar and knowen tongue, with a newer order of your owne in tying the people to a strange and vnknowen language: either of those by the verdict of Augustine in this verie place is that most insolent madnes which you would seeme to fasten on others.

And yet you miserably racke this place of Augustine. For of two parts, you dissemble the first,* 1.634 that you may pull the second to your purpose: and in the se∣conde you leaue out two conditions which your Author addeth: and were the text truely cited, your application is so false in the sight of all men, that none but mad men would venter on so desperate an assertion, as you haue doone. For

that the whole church of God throughout the world euer had, or at this day hath her seruice in an vnknowen tongue, or in Latine, well you might vtter it in a dreame: but neuer sober man said it being broad awaked, & well aduised.

The wordes of S. Augustine, being consulted of the rites and ceremonies of the Church,* 1.635 not of the doctrine or faith of the church, are these: If the autho∣ritie of the Diuine Scripture prescribe in any of these (rites and ceremonies) what is to bee doone, I answere there may bee no doubt, but that we must doe as we reade. Similiter si quid horum, tota * 1.636 die per orbem obseruat Ecclesia. The like I say if any of these (rites) bee obserued of the whole church tho∣roughout the whole world (at this present day), for to dispute that we should do otherwise:* 1.637 is most insolent madnesse. The scripture is first to be respected & obeied: if that prescribe no certainty, the custom of the vniuersall church is to be folowed, in those rites which are neither against the faith, nor good maners, for that is his maine restriction: and not euery custome which in time to come might, or should happily bee newly deuised by some partes or members of the church, but such as the whole church far & neere without contradiction retained then, when he spake, as descending from the Apostles or Apostolike men. And so the word (hodie) doth import, though your Monkes haue left out the first sylla∣ble, & written (die) for (hodie) as the course of the sentence doth plainly declare.

If then to dispute whether the ancient custome of the vniuersall church may be altered, be madnes, yea most insolent madnes, what degree of phrensie wil fal to your lot, that erect & desend a particular & late growen custome, against the plaine precept of God himselfe, against the Apostles prescription, against the ge∣nerall & ancient vsage of Christs church, yea against the nature of man, & true intent of your own seruice which you would seeme to make most account of?

Phi.

All this is vntrue.

Theo.

Bethinke your selfe better, and you shall finde it truer than you would wish.

Phi.

Had euer any Nation their church-seruice in a barbarous tongue before our time?

Theo.

Make you that such a wonder, which your own friends confesse was so common in the primatiue church? Lyra saith, In primatiua ecclesia bene∣dictiones & caetera coīa (or else leauing out the c, which seemeth to be added by the negligence of the Printer) oīa siebant in vulgari. In the primatiue church blessings, and (al other or) other common (praiers) were made in the vulgar toung (which the people vnderstood.) Eckius saith, Non negamus tamen Indis Australibus permissum, vt in lingua sua rem diuinam facerent, quod clerus eorum ho∣die obseruat. We deny not but the south Indians were suffered (in the prima∣tiue church) to haue their diuine seruice in their mother toung (which is nei∣ther Greeke, Hebrew, nor Latine) which also their clergy at this day obser∣ueth. An * 1.638 other of your friends saith of the Moscouits, Totū sacrū seu Missa Gētili ac vernacula lingua apudillos peragi solet. The whole seruice or masse is said with thē in their natiue & mother toūg. The epi. also & the Gospel of the daie are read to the people with a loud voice out of the chācel, for their better vnder∣stāding. Pet. Belloni saith. As * 1.639 many as are presēt with the priest singing masse

Armenia, answere him in the Armenian tongue. For all, that stand by, vn∣derstand the Armenian tongue which the Priest vseth (in his seruice.)

Phi.

* 1.640These bee schismaticall and disordered Churches.

Theo.

In deede they know no part of your holy Fathers religion nor dominion: Yet are they Christians, and neerer the truth by many degrees than the church of Rome. It is no schisme to bee free from him, to whom they were neuer subiect, and some obseruances though they haue, which are both superstitious and erronious: yet that is no reason to dispraise them in that wherein they followe the example of the true and sincere church of Christ, and retaine that custome which they re∣ceiued from the beginning.

Phi.

Wee may dislike them for this aswell as you may for other thinges.

Theo.

Whether you like them or no, so they doe and so haue they doone euer since they were planted in Christ, euen to this our age.

And this their constancie you can not dislike, but you must also dislike the Apostle that first taught it, the primatiue church that continued it and adiudged it to bee necessary; yea your holy Father himselfe, that not onely would permit it, when he was requested: but strictly commaunde it when it was not asked. Cyrillus that conuerted the people of Russia and Morauia,* 1.641 made request to the Bishop of Rome, as Pope Pius the second reporteth, that hee might vse the Sclauon tongue in saying diuine Seruice to them, whom hee had baptized. And when the matter came to bee handled in the sacred Senate (or coun∣cell chamber) a number contradicting it, he saith there was heard a voice, as it were from heauen, speaking these wordes: Let euerie spirite praise the Lord, and euerie tongue confesse him: and that vpon the hearing thereof, Cyrillus had his petition. The blindnes of your holy father and his Cardinals was reproued by a voice from heauen for hauing their Seruice in an vnknowen tongue: and yet you beare men in hand, to dislike the late custome of your Ro∣mish Synagogue: or so much as to dispute thereof, as if it were not to be done, is in∣solent madnesse.

Innocentius though hee were the first that brought Transubstantiation, Au∣ricular confession, and deposition of Princes to bee confirmed in open councell 1215. yeares after Christ, yet durst he not binde the West church to the La∣tine seruice, throughout, as you doe: but gaue streit charge rather to the con∣trary, that such as were of diuerse languages, shoulde haue the praiers and sa∣cramentes of the church in their seuerall and sundry rites and tongues: as ap∣peareth in the councell of Lateran assembled vnder Innocentius the thirde of that name. Because * 1.642 in many places within the same citie & Diocese there be mingled * 1.643 people of diuerse toungs, hauing vnder one faith sundry rites & customes: we straitly commaund that the Bishops of such cities & Dioceses prouide fit men which may celebrate diuine seruice, and minister the church Sacramēts vnto them, * 1.644 according to the diuersities of their rites & lāguages.

Phi.

In diuerse toūgs he saith they shal haue their seruice, but not in any bar∣barous tongue.

Theo.

And he that saith they shal haue their seruice in diuerse

tongues confesseth there were more tongues vsed in the West church than one: and taking order that seruice should be said vnto them according to the diuersi∣ties of their tongues,* 1.645 he saw some cause why the people should vnderstand what was said in the church: and if that be needfull or expedient for one nation, why not for other in like manner? And yet I see no restraint in the wordes, but that the Moscouites, Morauians, & others were prouided for by this Canon, to haue the church seruice in their proper and natiue tongue, as well as the Gre∣cians.

Phi.

If it were so: we account it lawful, for that the church of Rome did permit it.

Theo.

Then do we account our seruice in the English tongue much more lawful,* 1.646 chiefly for that it is warrāted by the word of God, as I haue shew∣ed; and secondly for that it wanteth not the generall vse and order of Christes church in her sincerest and purest state to confirme the same.

Phi.

Haue you the generall and ancient custom of Christes church to insure your seruice in the english tongue?

Theo.

Wee haue, for that tongue which the people vnder∣stand, be it English, Scottish, or what other speech you will.

Phi.

That any Nation praied in a barbarous tongue, you haue no president in the Primatiue church.

Theo.

This is not the first time that your teeth could not rule your tongue: The Primatiue church of Christ vsed and allowed all tongues, as well barbarous as learned, for the people to make their praiers in.* 1.647

Phi.

You say not trueth.

Theo.

If I doe, you knowe your reward. You must be catholikes of the second edition, when men began to fall from trueth to Apostasie. For with the right and ancient faith of Christs church, your Romish errours haue no fellowship.

Phi.

And what haue yours, that were neuer heard of before Luthers time?

Theo.

Howe chaunceth then, our doctrine is con∣firmed by the scriptures, and witnessed in all the Fathers, where yours is not?

Phi.

Not ours?

Theo.

Not yours.

Your praying in a tongue not vnderstood of the hearers: your single and so∣litarie Masses, where no man eateth besides the Priest: your decurted commu∣nions, where wanteth one halfe of Christes institution,* 1.648 I aske not howe you proue these points to bee catholike, that would trouble your braines too much: but what one Father haue you for them, lest you seeme to deriue your religion you know not from whom? Catholike should haue al the Fathers, we demaund you but one: If you come short of that, what hope cā you haue to recouer the rest?

Phi.

The doubt is not of our faith, but of yours: you must shewe, by what ti∣tle you claime your church, which was in our possession before you were borne.

Theo.

The walles you had: for those we striue not: The faith which is the foū∣dation of the church you neuer had: for that wee stand.* 1.649

Phi.

But who standeth with you besides your selues?

Theo.

I haue told you: the word of God, and cleare consent of that church, which you dare not deny to bee both ancient and catholike.

Phi.

First then where is your antiquitie for praying in a barbarous tongue?

Theo.

That, which I haue saide, might seeme sufficient, you bringing against

it neither reason nor authoritie but onely Pilates that put Christ to death.* 1.650

Phi.

That the people did vnderstand the prayers which were made in the church you shew some proofe: but those we say were in Hebrew, Greeke or Latine. Marie that the primatiue church permitted any Nation to make their praiers in a bar∣barous tongue, for that as yet I see no proofe.

Theo.

Reuiew that which is al∣ready sayd, and you shall find, that not onely the people did sing the Psalmes and answere the praiers that were made in the church, but also they were taught,* 1.651 it was a point of their christian dutie so to do, and that neither the Priests voice was needefull, nor the prayer publike, except the whole multitude did both cō∣ceiue the meaning, and confirme the blessing of their Pastour and Reader: which in a strange tongue they can not: & therefore the conclusion is infallible, that in the Primatiue church no tongue was vsed but such as the people vnder∣stood, and in a barbarous nation of necessitie that must be a barbarous tongue.

Phi.

But wee require some testimonie that a barbarous tongue was vsed in prayer: for it may be that all the nations in the worlde vnderstood Hebrewe, Greeke or Latine;* 1.652 else why did Pilate set the title on our Sauiours crosse in those three tongues, but that al nations might read it: and that they could not, except they vnderstood one of those three tongues, which I coniecture they did.

Theo.

A coniecture fit for the cause you haue in hand. Pilate did not set vp the title for all the men, women and children in the world to see or read as you sup∣pose: but for those that were gathered out of all Countries to Ierusalem at the time of his execution: and that strangers as well as Iewes might knowe the cause why Christ was adiudged to dy, the superscription was writtē in Hebrew, Greeke and Latine,* 1.653 without the knowledge of one of the which tongues no stranger vsed to frequent those countries, least he should be forced as dombe mē are, to worke with signes, which in trauellers or ligers, that haue any busines, is meere madnes without some interpreter.

Had all men vnderstood one of those three toungs as you imagine, what nee∣ded the holy Ghost to haue bestowed any moe tongues on the Apostles, when they were sent to preach to al nations, but the Hebrewe, Greeke and Latine?* 1.654 for the whole worlde as you say, spake and vnderstood those three. You may do well to controle the holy Ghost, and with your monsterous and false surmise to say the gift of moe tongues than these three, was not needefull. And where is then the diuision of toungs which God inflicted on the Sonnes of men, if the whole earth had recouered her selfe to be of three tongues? Or how could any Nation bee barbarous, if ech coulde naturally speake some one of the learned tongues? Yea why might not the ofspring of Adam haue gotten from three tongues to one with more easie and quicker speede, than from an infinite varie∣ty of tongues to three, and so frustrate the iudgement and wisedome of God in confounding their speech?* 1.655

Philand.

I doe not auouch it for a certaintie.

Theophil.

Looke better vn∣to it, and you will reiect it not onely for an impossibilitie, but euen for an im∣piety. And yet were you so absurdly and wickedly bent, you hurt not our

assertion. For wee can proue that the primatiue church allowed and vsed praiers by precise ••ermes in barbarous tongues. Origen saieth, a 1.656The Gre∣cians name God in the Greeke tongue, the Romanes in the Latine: & sin∣gul••item natiua & vernacula lingua Deum precantur, & laudibus pro se quisque extoll••t, and euery (Nation) in their natiue and mother tongue make their praiers to God and yeeld him his due praises. S. Hierom describing the so∣lemne funerall of Paula, that died at Bethleem in Iurie saith: b 1.657Hebraeo, Graeco, Latino, Syróque sermone psalmi in ordine personabant, non solum triduo donec s••b∣ter Ecclesiam, & iuxta specum Domini conderetur, sed per omnem hebdoma∣dam. The Psalmes were sung by order in the Hebrewe, Greeke, Latine and Syrian tongue, not onely those three dayes, til shee was laid in earth within the church, and neere to the sepulchre of our Sauior, but that whole weeke.

And least you should thinke this order of singing in diuerse tongues was vsed but once, commending the very same place for the great concourse of Nations farre and neere, thither resorting and there leading their liues, he maketh Pau∣la then aliue giue this report to Marcella. c 1.658Quicunque in Gallia fuerit primus huc properat: diuisus ab orbe nostro Britannus, si in religione processerit, dimisso sole occiduo quaerit locum fama tantum & Scripturarum relatione notum. Quid refe∣ramus Armenios, quid Persas, quid Indiae, quid Aethiopum populos, ipsam{que} iuxta Aegyptum fertilem Monachorum, Pontum, Cappadociam, Syriam Caelen, Mesopotamiam, cunctáque orientis examina? Vox quidem dissona, sed vna religio: tot pene Psallentium Chori, quot Gentium diuersitates. Whosoeuer is the chief∣est in Fraunce, hither he hasteneth. The Britane diuided from our world, when he commeth to any forwardnesse in Religion, seeketh for (this) place which he knoweth only by hearesay, and by relation of the Scriptures: what shall I speake of the Armenians, Persians, Indians, Ethiopians: of Egypt, that is hard by, and hath such stoare of Monkes: or of Pontus, Cappado∣cia, Caelesyria, Mesopotamia, and all the swarmes of the East? They haue diuerse languages, but one religion. There are (here) almost as many Quires that sing the Psalmes (in their seueral tongues) as there be diuersities of nations.

Sainct Augustine vrgeth this which you defende (that GOD shoulde not bee praised in a barbarous tongue) as a manifest inconuenience against them, that woulde not haue the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 vsed to expresse the nature and sub∣staunce of the Trinitie. d 1.659If one substaunce of the Father, the Sonne and the holie Ghost may not bee vttered in the Greeke tongue: ergo neither is it fitte that God shoulde bee praised in a barbarous (tongue:) but if the later be vsed, why not the former? And that the later was vsed hee sheweth in these wordes, e 1.660Vna rogatur vt misereatur à cunctis Latinis & Barbaris v∣nius Dei natura, vt à laudibus Dei vnius, nec ipsa lingua barbara sit, vt Latinis aliena. The one nature of one God is praied vnto by all the La∣tines and Barbarians to bee mercifull (to them,) in so much that the

verie barbarous tongue is not excluded from the praises of one God, as be∣longing to the Latines (more than to the Barbarians.) In Latine we saie, Domine miserere. Then belike this mercie ought to bee asked of that one God the father, the Sonne and the holy Ghost, but onely in the Hebrewe or Greeke tongue, or at least in the Latine tongue, and not in any barba∣rous tongue. Marie if it bee lawfull not onely for the Barbarians in their language, but for the Romanes (conquered and compelled by the Goa••hes to learn their speech) to say sihoraarmem:* 1.661 which is as much as, Lord haue mercy (on vs,) why should it not be lawfull for the councels of the Fa∣thers that were assembled in the Land of Grecia to cal one substance of the Father, the Sonne and the holy Ghost, in their owne tongue homousion? Thus much S. Augustine confessing that God was and might bee praised and prayed vnto in a barbarous language, as well as in Hebrew, Greeke or La∣tine: and repeating a peece of the church seruice in the Gothian tongue, which not onely them-selues vsed, but the Romanes were forced to receiue in steede of Domine miserere, when their citie was taken and surprised by the Gothes, for Kyerie eleison,* 1.662 which Gregorie two hundred yeres after borowed of the Grecians, was not as yet in Sainct Augustines time vsed in the Church of Rome.

The very sauage people that offered vnto Diuels, when they were conuerted vnto Christ, were not denied to haue their Psalmes and prayers in their rude and vnpolished tongues, as S. Hierom reporteth of the Bessians and others. f 1.663The passion and resurrection of Christ, the tongues and letters of all Nati∣ons doe sound. I speake not of the Hebrewes, Greekes and Latines, which Nations the Lord did dedicate in the title of his crosse: that the soule is im∣mortall, and hath his being after the dissolution of the body, the Indian, the Persian, the Goth, the Aegyptian can largely discourse. The wild Bes••ians and they which goe cloathed in beastes skinnes (for lacke of other apparel) sacrifised men to the Ghostes departed,* 1.664 stridorem suum in dulce crucis frege∣runt melos, haue turned their barbarous and fearefull noise into the sweete melodie of the crosse.

Other particulars might be brought, but the report of Sainct Basill shall suffice for the generall order of praying and singing, obserued, as hee saieth, in all the churches of God, and therefore in those Nations and Countries where the common people coulde no Latine, Greeke nor Hebrew: but of force were driuen to vse their naturall language, though it were barbarous, before they could either vtter their own minds or vnderstand what others sayd. g 1.665 The people with vs rising in the night goe to the house of prayer, and with continuall teares making their confession to God, and at length rising from prayers, they sette them-selues in order to sing Psalmes. Where being diuided into two partes they sing by courses (eche side after other) and so with varietie of Psalmes, and prayers interser∣ted, they spende the night: as soone as the daie breaketh all of them

in common, as it were with one mouth and one heart, offer to the Lord a psalme of confession, euery one of them making the woordes of re∣pentance proper to him-selfe. In respect of this (order) then if you refuse vs, you must also refuse the Egyptians, the people of either 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Lybia,* 1.666 Thebais, Pa∣lestine, the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Arabians, Phoenicyans, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Syrians, the (Armenians, Babylonians & other) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 borderers on Euphrates, & generally al with whome vigils, prayers and common psalmodies are esteemed.

And that this order of singing the Psalmes was generall throughout the whole Church of Christ, were the people Iewes, Grecians, Romanes, or Bar∣barians, the woordes immediatly before doe witnesse. To that accusation wherein we are blamed for the psalmodies, I haue this to answere, that the maner and fashion (of singing Psalmes) which is here with vs, is agreeable and consonant to all the Churches of God. If these words be true: then not only the Egyptians, South Indians, Arabians and Syrians, whom this Fa∣ther nameth; but the Persians, East Indians, Armenians, Iberians, Scithi∣ans and all other Nations had the same order of praying and singing in their Churches by the mouthes and voyces of the simple and vnlearned people. And consequently either all the Christian men, weomen and children in the world could speake and vnderstand one of the three learned tongues, which is a ridi∣culous, false, and impious imagination, or else eche nation had their publique prayers and Psalmes in their seuerall and barbarous tongues: which is the point you would needes haue prooued, before we passed any farther.

Phi.

That was then the manner of the Church, but since this which we vse,* 1.667 hath beene thought by the wisest and godliest to bee most expedient, and it is certaine∣ly seene to bee nothing repugnant to S. Paul.

Theo.

You lacke good neighbours to helpe you, that you bee forced so shamefully with your own mouthes in god∣linesse and wisedome to preferre yourselues before the learned and Catholike fathers of all antiquitie.* 1.668 Wee shewe you the auncient and vniuersall custome of Christs Church proportioning her prayers by the rule of S. Paul, and direc∣ting them wholy to edifie the vulgar and simple people, as much as might bee, by plaine precept from God himselfe, as they conceiued the Apostles speach: you tell vs that you haue not onely chaunged that order of your owne authorities: but that you haue conferred with some godlier and wiser personages than those famous and woorthie Pastours that obserued this course in the Church of Christ many hundreths before you were borne: and find it most expedient to con∣tinue your vnfruitfull manner of praying in a tongue not vnderstoode, though the precept of God, the Doctrine of the Apostle, and the practise of the prima∣tiue Church bee expressely against it. O mouthes prepared to sticke at nothing that may any way serue to hoodwinke your hearers! In this and many other points of your Religion you runne headlong against the cleare testimonies of the sacred Scriptures, and generall consent of the Catholike fathers, and yet you will be Catholikes.

Phi.

You be very rife with your reproches.

Theo.

I might iustly giue

you some oftener remembrances, but that I more respect the seemelynes of the cause, which is Gods, than the sinnefulnesse of your attempts, who neglect Scriptures, Fathers, Councels, Canons, Church and all, that is to fol∣lowe the decrees you knowe not of whome: and yet will haue it insolencie and madnes in vs to dispute of your actions.

Philand.

You doe but slaunder vs.

Theoph.

Wee haue hitherto slaundered you with matters of trueth, if the rest prooue like, wee shall doe you no wrong, though wee fawne on you lesse.

* 1.669Your Masse, which this Realme hath nowe reiected, what hath it in it, ei∣ther Catholike or Apostolike, or any way concordable with Christes ins••itu∣tion?

Philand.

You coulde neuer light on a woorse match. Of all the rites, obseruances, and Sacraments which we haue, none is more Apostolike, more Catholike, more conformable to Christes order and example than our Masse;* 1.670 and your prophane Suppera 1.671 hath nothing agreeable to the Apostles or Christs insti∣tution, but all cleane contrary: yea yourb 1.672 communion is the very table and cup of di∣uels, and yourc 1.673 Caluins bread and wine, like at length to come to the sacrifice of Ce∣res and Bacchus.

Theo.

Tie vp your doggish, if not diuelish eloquence: you shall haue no praise,* 1.674 though you take some pride in broching these blasphe∣mies. Your poysonfull tongues and vnblushing faces may iniurie the ordinance of God, but you can not ouerthrow his trueth. If wee had deuised any thing of our owne braines as you haue done the most part of your Religion, you would haue kindled I see to some choler that spare vs such speaches for following the very samplar & original which Christ did institute, as exactly, as we possibly might.

Phi.

You follow no part of Christes institution.

Theo.

It is easie for your side to say what you list: you were no right Friers, if you coulde not speake for your selues: but leaue your scoffes & vaunts at home, & bring forth your proofs.

Phi.

* 1.675I wil beginne with the name, and so proceede to the rest of the circum∣stances. You haue smal reason to name the holy sacrament rather the Supper of the Lord, than after the maner of the primatiue Church, the Eucharist, Masse, or Litur∣gie. But belike you would bring it to the supper againe, or Euening seruice, when men be not fasting, the rather to take away the olde estimation of the holynes thereof.

The.

* 1.676If you leaue not so much as the name vntouched, I hope you will not conceale any weightie matter of more importance.

Phi.

You may sweare for that, and keepe your othe.

Theo.

Then if all your quarrels being discussed, you bee found to haue vttered nothing against vs but your sharpe and eger stomackes, and notwithstanding your vagaries and resaliries to and fro, your Masse bee neither Catholike nor Apostolike, deserue you not to beare backe your owne burden, and to haue Bacchus, Ceres and the rest of your infernall saints to the shrines whence you brought them?

Phi.

When that falleth out, which wil be neuer. But you delay the time, for feare you take the foyle.

Theo.

If your argu∣ments be as quicke, as your appetites, we shall soone dispatch; but bring vs not drippings, and say they be deinties.

Phi.

S. Ambrose in hunc locum,* 1.677 and most good authors nowe thinke this which (the Apostle) calleth Dominicam Caenam, is not ment of the blessed Sacrament, as the circumstances also of the text do giue, namelie the reiecting of the poore, the riche mens priuate deuouring of all, not exspecting one an other, gluttonie and drunkennes in the same, which cannot agree to the holie Sacrament. And therefore you haue * 1.678 small reason (as I saide) to name the saide holie Sacrament rather the Supper of the Lorde, than after the manner of the primatiue Church, the Eucharist, Masse, or Liturgie.

Theo.

Malice bursteth out at your tongues endes,* 1.679 when you cannot abide the woordes which wee vse, though the Scriptures did first authorize them, and the fathers for their partes continue them. The Sacrament which the Lorde ordained at his last maundie hath sundrie names that wee finde authen∣ticallie written in the worde of God: as the a 1.680 Lordes table, the breaking of bread, and cup of thanksgiuing, the Communion of the bodie and blood of Christ, and as we thought till this time, b 1.681 the Lordes Supper. You be∣ginne to tell vs S. Ambrose is of an other minde; and b••ca••se your holde in him was verie small, you adde that the most of your selues also doe nowe so thinke. A worshipful catch, that fifteene hundreth yeres after Christ you come in with your owne verdict, in your owne cause, and looke to haue it currant.

Phi.

We meane not our selues.

Theo.

You can meane none,* 1.682 but your selues, or your fellowes. For you saie, most good Authors now thinke so; of our side I am sure you will not agnise that anie be good authors, as you call them, or that the most of vs are of that opinion; and therefore you meane your selues and your owne adherents: who, were you not partial, yet are you too young to bid Augustine, Hierome, Chrysostome, Theodorete, and others, rise from their chaiers, and giue you place.

Augustine repeating the verie woordes of S. Paul, when you come togi∣ther, this is not to eate the Lords supper, saith c 1.683 hanc ipsam acceptionem Eucha∣ristiae Dominicam Caenam vocat; the Apostle calleth this verie receiuing of the Eucharist the Lords Supper. Hierome commenting vpon the same wordes: when you come togither this is not to eate the Lords Supper, addeth:d 1.684 Now is it not the Lordes Supper (as you vse it) but mans, in as much as you seeme to meete rather to fill your bellies, than for the mysterie. For the Lordes Supper ought to be common to all, because he deliuered the Sacramentes equallie to all his Disciples that were present. And a Supper therefore it is called, for that the Lord at Supper deliuered the Sacraments. Chrysostome affirmeth the same. e 1.685 The Apostle toucheth them more dreadfullie with these wordes, This is not to eate the Lordes Supper, sending them to that night in which Christ deliuered the wonderfull mysteries. Therefore he calleth it a Supper; for that Supper had all (that were present) sitting togi∣ther in common; (that is at one time and in one place) * As f 1.686 often as you shal eate, you shall shewe forth the Lordes death; this is that supper. And in an other place. g 1.687 This is not to eate the Lordes Supper. He meaneth that Supper which Christ deliuered (before his passion) when all his Disciples

were with him. For in that Supper the Lorde and all his Seruants sate togi∣ther.

Theodorete Likewise,h 1.688 The Lords Supper he calleth the Lords Sacra∣ment. And so Photius, He i 1.689 calleth it the Lords (Supper) after the imitati∣on of that dreadfull and mysticall (Supper) when the Lorde sate togither with the disciples, as if he shoulde haue saide the (Supper) which the Lord disposed and ordained. Bede to expound this place citeth the wordes of Augustine that went before. k 1.690The verie receiuing of the Eucharist he calleth the Lords Supper. Haymo mentioneth both opinions, but concludeth plainlie with vs. l 1.691Sacramentum igitur corporis Christi à communione Caena appellatur. The Sacrament then of Christes bodie is called a Supper by reason of the com∣munion: Or if you will haue one place insteede of all,* 1.692 reade S. Augustine de verbis Domini secundum Lucam: Sermo. 33. and you shall finde him not onely call the Sacrament a Supper and the Lords Supper twentie times in one short Sermon, but also bring you the authoritie of Christ himselfe for it, when hee saide in the fourteenth of Luke, a m 1.693 certaine man made a great Supper.

And therefore you were more angrie than wise, to check that terme as ha∣uing smal reason,* 1.694 which had so good testimonie both of Scriptures and fathers; and in lue of it to offer vs the name of the Masse, a word that the greeke Church neuer vsed, as your selues knowe, and is found in the workes of all the Latine fathers that be theirs, but six times in six hundreth yeares, (set Gregorie aside who liued about that time and vseth the worde somewhat oftner than anie of the rest) and yet not in that sense, nor for that thing which you intend. For neuer father called the Sacrament or Eucharist the Masse: And in that point if wee haue but small reason to speake as wee doe; you haue vtterlie no reason great nor small to call the Sacrament the Masse as you doe: but that rage in you ma∣nie times ouer ruleth reason, and then you pushe out your violent and vnmaste∣red passions.

Phi.

Wee haue S. Ambrose for our Author, when wee denied the blessed Sacrament to be called a Supper, and for the name of the Masse in plaine wordes we haue not* 1.695 him only, but also August. sermo. 251.91. Concil. Carthag. 2. cap. 3.4. cap. 84. Mileuit. ca. 12. Leo epist. 88.81. cap. 2. Grego. lib. 2. epist. 9.93. &c.

Theo.

S. Ambrose doth not saie, that the ministration of the Sa∣crament may not be called the Lordes Supper; but he woulde not haue vs thinke it to be a Supper prouided to fill our bellies. And in that sense he saith, Ostendit n 1.696 illis mysterium Eucharistiae inter caenandum celebratum non caenam esse. The Apostle sheweth them, that the mysterie of the Eucharist was celebra∣ted as the (disciples) were at Supper, and not to be the (whole) Supper (which they had:) and thereuppon groundeth that which he noted before, that in the Church, o 1.697 vnitatis & mysterij causa conuenitur, non dissentionis & ventris, they must assemble for the celebration of the mysterie and obseruation of vnitie, not for dissention and the bellie.* 1.698

Phi.

The circumstances of the text, namelie the reiecting of the poore the riche

mens deuouring of all, not expecting one an other, gluttony and drunkennesse in the same can not agree to the holy Sacrament.

Theo.

The worlde wanteth such skil∣full interpreters of Scriptures as you are; you would easily proue if you were let alone, that a man hath no head, because hee hath two feete, or two armes, and those are not his head.* 1.699

Phil.

Would you make vs so foolish as to thinke a man may not haue feete, armes and head: though the partes in themselues be diffe∣rent in proportion, position and action?

Theo.

But in boulting S. Pauls text, you reason as if hee could not. For of two thinges, that were vsed both toge∣ther, you vrge the one to exclude the other; and as if that were some mightie collection, you say that we and al the fathers who tooke it otherwise haue smal reason for our doings.

Phi.

We speake of you, not of the fathers.

Theo.

You thrust them to the heartes through our sides. For if we following their ful con∣sent in expounding this place, haue small reason, they had as litle, who began it vnto vs, and went that way before vs; we tredding but their steppes after them.

Phi.

We meant not to disgrace them.

Theo.

The sequele of your words doth, whatsoeuer your purpose was.

Phi.

Wee giue you the reasons of our ex∣position, and those in our iudgement very cleare.

Theo.

As cleare follies as any can bee.

Phi.

Disprooue them then.

Theo.

The christians you graunt had their common feasts in the Church at that tyme for their relieuing of the poore,* 1.700 & retaining of brotherly vnitie.

Phi.

They had as wee note vnto you out of Tertullian, Apolog. ca. 39. Clemens Alexand. S. Iustine, S. Augustine contra Fau∣stum lib. 20. cap. 20.

Theo.

And that they had therewithall the Lords Supper, (for so I must call it, till you bring some better reason against it) I thinke you doubt not.

Phi.

At or about the same time they had; but whether before or after I know not.

Theo.

To this purpose it shall not skil.

The faults for which S. Paul reproued them were these; the diuiding them∣selues into factiōs,* 1.701 inso much that they would not expect one an other, (no not at the Lords table) their shaming the poore (with whom (as it seemed) they tooke skorne to sit at the same table,) & abusing the church of God to excesse of eating & drinking. The two later enormities might be committed at their ordinarie feastes in the Church: and so might also the first; yet because those brotherly repastes did either end or beginne with the Lords Supper, they coulde not di∣uide themselues eche from other, and disdaine the poore at their cōmon meats, but they must offer the same abuse at the Lordes supper, which was ministred to them as they sate at their tables immediatly before, or after their vsuall and corporall refreshings.

By S. Pauls wordes,* 1.702 it shoulde appeare the Communion was distributed to them after meales, for so the Apostles receiued it at their masters hands the night that he was betrayed, and S. Paul not onely noteth the time when Christ did it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, after they had supped, but to cut off dissention, drunken∣nesse and contempt of their poore brethren in the Church, (which were the vi∣ces then growen amongst them) he requireth a precedent examination before they did eate, not an answerable conuersation after they had eaten. Hee saith

not, let euery man remember at whose table he hath eaten, & whose cup hee hath been partaker,* 1.703 but, let a man examine himself, and so eate of this bread and drinke of this cup; that is before hee eate of this breade and drinke of this cup, and he shall find that contentious and riotous persons, (such as they were in their feastes,) bee no sit ghestes for that heauenly Supper. And yet to vs it is all one whether it were before or after: at their bankers and feastes, it was mi∣nistred and euē serued at their tables, as S. Augustine noteth in these words. (Non debent fratres) mensis suis ista miscere,* 1.704 sicut faciebant quos Apostolus argu∣it & emendat. (The brethren ought not) to haue these (mysteries) serued at their tables, as they did whome the Apostle reprooueth and refour∣meth.

* 1.705And had not the Lordes Supper beene abused among them, what needed the rehearsall of the first institution: to the which because the Apostle recal∣leth them, it is euident they were fallen from it. Nowe abuses in this place S. Paul mentioneth none but drunkennesse, dissention and defrauding the poore: and since drunkennesse and deceiuing the poore, as you auouche, can not agree to the Sacrament, it followeth that dissention was the thing which defaced the Lordes Supper among them, in that they would neither at cōmon meats nor at the Lordes Supper sit al together, but sort them selues in factions and companies, as they fauoured and friended eche other.

This was the fault which S. Paul first rebuked, when hee beganne to re∣dresse the thinges that troubled the Church of Corinth. They contended about Baptisme,* 1.706 saying, I am Pauls and I am Apollos, and I am Cephaes; and their dissention so increased, and came to that sharpnes, that they woulde haue their tables in the Church and euen the Lordes Supper also eche company by them selues.a 1.707 The false Apostles, sayth Ambrose, had sowen such discorde among them, that they stood striuing for their oblations. Hierom saith,b 1.708 In ecclesia conueniētes oblationes suas separatim offerebant. Meeting in the church they de∣liuered their oblations to seueral companies (according as euery man fansied the parties.) And againe,c 1.709 Nemo alium expectabat vt communiter offeretur: No man expected one an other, that the oblation might be common. And S. Paul, as Chrysostom thinketh, brought the Table & Supper where the Lord himselfe was, and at which sate all his Disciples, euen Iudas the Traytour, for an example, to shew them: that, that is rightly iudged to be d 1.710 The Lordes Sup∣per, quae omnibus simul conuocatis concorditer & communiter sumitur, which is receiued in common, and with one consent of all assembled together. Yea S. Augustine affirmeth that e 1.711 The Apostle speaking of this Sacrament saith, for which cause brethren when you assemble together to eate, expect one an other.

* 1.712Your obseruations therefore are first false, when you say, these circumstan∣ces can not agree to the holy Sacrament. For euen these which you name, as most vnlikeliest, are applied by the fathers to the Lordes Supper. Expecting one an other, you heard S. Augustine referre directly to this Sacrament. Deuouring

of all by the rich, and drunkennesse S. Hierom expoundeth likewise of the verie same mysterie. (The Apostle)f 1.713 sayth one is drunke, and an other hungrie: for this reason. Quia superuenientibus mediocribus, & volentibus sumere Sacra∣menta deerant, quoniam ab illis qui obtulerant oblationes, in communi conuiuio fue∣rant cuncta consumpta. Because the meaner sort comming after (the rich) & mynding to receiue the Sacraments, there was nothing left, (to minister the Sacrament withall;) they that brought the oblations deuouring all in their common banket. Haymo sayth, g 1.714One is hungrie, that is hee which for pouertie is not able to bring wheaten bread and wyne to bee consecra∣ted for the Communion: [an other] to witte the riche and wealthie man [is drunken] and surfeyteth as well with other meates, as with the sacraments of the body and blood of the Lord.

Next did some of them not agree to the sacraments of the Lordes table,* 1.715 as surfeyting, deuouring and drunkennesse: yet other circumstaunces, as schismes, not expecting one an other, may and doe very fitly serue for the Lordes Supper, as you see by the iudgement of those Fathers whom I haue named.

Thirdly did no circumstaunces of their disorders agree to the right institu∣tion of the Sacrament,* 1.716 yet so long as Saint Paul refelleth their doinges in the Church as vnseemely for the sacred mysteries there prepared and receiued: what reason haue you to deny that Saint Paul meaneth the sacrament, where hee sayth, when you come together (if you fall to filling your bellies, and des∣pising the poore, as you doe in your feastes) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, You can not, (or this is not the right way to) eate the Lordes Supper. For this is plaine to him that hath but halfe an eye, that Saint Paul checketh them as vn∣woorthie partakers (by these their abuses of the mysteries of Christ,* 1.717) and interpreteth the plagues which some of them felt, to bee Gods scourges for their loosenes in that behalfe, and therefore with great reasons might hee beginne to reprehend them as vn••it approchers to the Sacrament, and vtter so much in these woordes, when you come together, this is not (the way) to eate the Lordes Supper, or to haue accesse to his table, to make schismes at your feastes in the Church with excesse in your selues, and reproche to others.

Phi.

If you will needes haue the Sacrament called the Lordes Supper,* 1.718 keepe you that name, and wee will keepe ours, as more auncient and Catho∣like by the testimonie of Saint Augustine, S. Ambrose and the rest whome I cited before for the antiquitie of the blessed Masse.

Theo.

Hee that wil bold∣ly deny a trueth, will easily affirme a falsehood. S. Augustine in all the works that be vndoubtedly his, neuer so much as once named the Masse.* 1.719 The Ser∣mons de tempore, which you produce, are collected out of other mens writings as well as his, and many of themh 1.720 found vnder the names of other authors, and fauour litle either of Austens learning or phrase, as Erasmus confessed when he first surueyed them.

* 1.721S. Ambrose hath the woorde once, and so haue two Prouinciall Councels of Africa; Leo hath it twise; which is all that you can finde in sixe hundreth yeres till Gregorie the first came, and vsed the woorde somewhat oftener: yet none of these cal the Sacrament or Sacrifice by that name, as you would haue it, but rather expresse by that word the auncient order of the primatiue church, in sending away such as might not be partakers of the Lords table, as in place where I noted before.* 1.722 And that Missa with the fathers doeth signifie not the Masse, but leaue to depart before or after the communion, your owne fellowes wil instruct you, whom you may not wel distrust as being with you, though you trust not vs that are against you.

Polydore repeateth and alloweth the same with these woordes: i 1.723Mihiverò prior ratio probatur vt magis apposita. The former diriuation (of the word M••ssa) pleaseth me better, as the likelier: and not that it should signifie a sacrifice and be deriued from the Hebrew word Missà as Reuchline woulde deduce it. And therefore he sayth,k 1.724 Idem igitur mos a nostris etiam seruatur, vt peractis sacris, per Diaconum pronuncietur,* 1.725 Ite, missa est: quod idem est, ac ilicet, id est ire licet. The same maner is obserued of our men, that at the ende of diuine seruice, the Deacon should say, ITE, MISSA EST, which is as if he sayd, YOV MAY DE∣PART. And that missa was vsual for missio, he sheweth out of Cyprians epistles, where he sayth remissa for remissio.

Rhenanus another of your friends giueth the like obseruation in his notes vppon the 4. booke of Tertullian against Marcion.l 1.726 Hodie in fine Sacri Leuita pronunciat, Ite, missa est, id est, missio est, quod olim in initio dicebatur, antequam in∣ciperentur videlicet ipsa mysteria. Hinc iuxta vulgi consuetudinem, Ambrosius mis∣sas facere dixit. Propriè missa erat tempore Sacrificij quando Cathecumeni foras mittebantur. At this day the Priest pronounceth at the end of his seruice, Ite, missa est, that is, go, you haue leaue to depart, which in the primatiue church was sayd in the beginning, before they came to the celebration of the Sa∣craments. Thence Ambrose vsed the word missam facere, according to the vulgar custome (of those tymes.) For properly missa was when the conuerts not yet baptized, were sent away in the time of the sacrifice, that is at what time the rest addressed themselues to be partakers of the Lords table. And that missa was common for missio; hee proueth by Tertullian and Cyprian in his booke de bono patientiae, and epist. 14.

And lest you shoulde thinke this to bee a phantasticall assertion of his with∣out all ground or authoritie, such as the most of your obseruations are, hee tel∣leth you that, this mysterie of antiquitie is related in Isidores Lexicon. And in deede so it is. For Isidore sayth,m 1.727 Missa tempore Sacrificij est, quando Cathecu∣meni foras mittuntur, clamāte Leuita, si quis cathecumenus remansit, exeat foras, & inde missa, quia sacramētis altaris interesse non possunt qui nondū regenerati nascun∣tur. Missa was about the tyme of the sacrifice, when the learners and such as were not yet baptized were sent out of the Church, the Leuite crying, if any Cathecumene bee heere, let him depart, and thence is the word missa,

because they can not be present at the Sacrament of the Altar, which are not yet regenerate. And I thinke for very shame you would not séeme to be so foolish as to take n 1.728 missam Cathecumenorum, which the fourth councell of Carthage doth mention in the place alleaged by your selues, and likewise S. Austen in those very sermons, which you cite as his, for your Masse or Sacrifice. For how can, o 1.729 fit missa Cathecumenis, stand either for the sacra∣ment or sacrifice, since the persons named were not baptized, and conse∣quently not to be admitted to any of the Church mysteries?

So that graunt the word missa were found oftner in the Fathers than it is, you can thence conclude nothing for your Masse: which you rudely and vnaduisedly thinke to be all one with their missa,* 1.730 or missarum solemnia, where in déede it is as contrarie to that which they spake of, as poyson to an whole∣some potion. For missa with them did signifie the sending away of such as might not communicate with the rest at the Lords table: the masse with you is the reall and actuall sacrificing of the sonne of God to his father; and the setting of the people to gaze on the Priest whiles he alone deuoureth all, and falsifieth the very words and actions of Christes institution.

Phil.

Nay you falsifie both the words and déedes of Christes institution: and though you gather out of Isidore and others that Missa in the ancient Fathers was the demising of such as might not be present at the Sacrifice; and missa Cathecumenorum by no meanes can be our Masse, yet touching our Sauiours institution of the blessed Sacrament, we come néerer to this ex∣ample than you do; you missing it in most points that be essentiall, and we following all his actions, that are imitable.

Theop.

What essentiall points do we misse?

Phil.

Almost all.

Theop.

Reason you named some.

Phil.

You do not imitate Christ in blessing the bread and wyne,* 1.731 nor in vnleauened bread, and mingling water with wine, nor in saying the words of consecration ouer the bread and wine; you vse no confession before, nor adoration of the blessed Sa∣crament at the receiuing of it. A number of like defects there are in your com∣munion, which cause it to be no sacrament, but common bread and wine. Ther∣fore * 1.732 imperet vobis Deus, and confound you, for not discerning his holy body, and for conculcating the blood of the new Testament.

Theop.

Kéepe your burning and cursing deuotion for your selues; your manquelling and masse-mongring rage hath as much affinitie with * 1.733 Michaels praier beséeching God y^e diuell might be restrained, as fiercenes and furie hath to patience and pietie. If we haue altered any part of Christes institution, curse on in Gods name, and let your curses take effect. But if the celebration of our mysteries be answerable to his will and word that first ordained them, you curse not vs, whome you would hurt, but him, that your cursed toongs can not hurt, which is God to be blessed for euer; and whose euerlasting curse will take hold of you, if you re∣lent not the sooner, for your proude defiance and stately contempt of his truth in respect of your massing reuels and mummeries.

Philand.

Nay you are contemners of his true body and blood in this

* 1.734 reuerent, blessed and holy sacrament, and breakers of his institution, and therefore his curse will light on you.

Theop.

Uaine spéech doth but spend time, shew first wherein we breake Christes institution, and for the truth of his presence in this Sacrament, if we teach otherwise than the Scrip∣tures and Fathers do warrant vs, we are content to heare and beare the curse, which blind zeale hath wrested from you.

Philand.

We shewed you euen now what things they were wherein you swarued from Christes in∣stitution.

Theoph.

You must both repeate them, and diuide them, that we may the better discusse them.

Phil.

I will.

Christ tooke bread into his hands, applying this ceremonie, action and benediction to it, and did blesse the very element, vsed power and actiue words * 1.735 vpon it, as he did ouer the bread and fishes which he multiplied: and so doeth the Church of God: and so do not (you) if (you) followe (your) owne booke and Doctrine, but (you) let the bread and cup stand aloofe, and occupie Christes words by way of re∣port and narration, applying them not at all to the matter proposed to be occupied: and therefore howsoeuer the simple people be deluded by the rehearsall of the same words which Christ vsed, yet consecration, benediction or sanctification of bread and wine (you) professe (you) make none at all.

Theoph.

Christ, you say, tooke bread into his hands, and did blesse the very e∣lement: What meane you by blessing?

Philand.

He vsed power and actiue words vpon it, as he did ouer the bread and fishes which he multiplied.

Theoph.

Why walke you thus in cloudes? Blessing with vs is the giuing of thanks vnto God: with you it is the making of a crosse in the aire with your two forefingers.* 1.736 Which of these twaine do you meane?

Philand.

That Christ blessed the bread; we be very sure: that he gaue thanks to the bread, you dare not say.

Theo.

Thanks he gaue to God, and not to the bread.

Phil.

But he blessed the bread: and therefore blessing is not taken in Christes institu∣tion for thankes-giuing as you misconster it.

Theoph.

If a man should put you to the new Testament in Gréeke, can you spell it?

Philand.

Yea Sir, and conster it as well as you.

Theoph.

Then I trust your cunning will serue you to knowφ 1.737 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, (which word the holy Ghost vseth to expresse the Lords action and benediction at his last Supper) doth inferre that our Sauiour gaue thanks to God, and made no crosse with his hand ouer the bread.

Philand.

* 1.738But S. Marke saith that our Lord brake the bread, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, ha∣uing first blessed it, and Saint Paul doeth not sticke to referre that word to the cup it selfe, and not to God. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the chalice of benediction, which we blesse, is it not the communication of the blood of Christ?

Theo.

Do you think S. Marke reproueth S. Luke, & S. Matthew; or that S. Paul is contrarie to himselfe?

Phil.

No: I thinke the one expoun∣deth the other, and all their reportes méete full in one congruence.

Theoph.

And otherwise to say or thinke, is apparent blasphemie against the spirit of God, who neuer halteth in his tale, nor dissenteth from him-selfe in any

thing, much lesse in a matter of so weightie moment as this is.

Philand.

He can be no Christian that doubteth thereof.

Theop.

Then 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is all one with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, & since children in Grammer schooles do know that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is to giue thanks with words,* 1.739 and not to crosse with fingers, we conclude that this is a childish error of yours to thinke that Christ gaue not thanks to God, but blessed the very element. Yea, no word plainer conuinceth your pue∣rilitie than that which you haue brought to relieue your selfe.* 1.740 For 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 doth more euidently refell your crossing with fingers than 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: as be∣ing compounded of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which in Gréeke importeth speach vttered by month, and by no meanes drawing or crossing the fingers.

Phil.

Let the word signifie what you will: that which Christ did, were it with hand or mouth, he did it ouer the bread, and vpon the bread, and so do not (you) but let the bread and cup stand aloofe and occupie Christs words by way of re∣port and narration, applying them not at all to the matter proposed to be occupied.

Theop.

This is the right behauiour of your Rhemish translatours, to wrangle and trifle about phrases and ambiguities, as if they were the pre∣cepts and commandements of God. Our Sauiour you affirme blessed the very element, that is, vsed power and actiue words vpon it or ouer it.

Blessing is a word that is diuersly vsed in the scriptures.* 1.741 To blesse God, is to praise him, and to giue honor to his name: and for that cause you shall find both those words ioyned together as words of like force, as whē S. Luke saith, the disciples a 1.742 continued in the temple praising and blessing God.

To blesse men,* 1.743 if it be done by men, (for of their blessings we speake, and not of Gods) is to pray for them: and to beséech God that he will blesse them, that is, defend them, prosper them, and be mercifull vnto them. So b 1.744 Isaac blessed Iacob, and c 1.745 Iacob the sonnes of Ioseph, and so were the Priests ap∣pointed by God himselfe to d 1.746 blesse the children of Israel: and a forme of praier for that purpose prescribed them.

We may also blesse the time,* 1.747 place and meanes, in which, or by which God sheweth his fauour towards vs: that is, we may pronounce them blessed for our sakes, and our selues bound to blesse God for them. So Dauid sayd to A∣bigail, e 1.748 Blessed be God that sent thee this day to meete me: Blessed be thy speach (or counsell) and blessed be thou, which hast kept me this day from going to (shed) blood: where he blesseth God, as the author, the wo∣man as the meanes, her words as the perswasions and occasions, that kept him from vsing the bloody reuenge, which he determined against Nabal and his familie. And so said Salomon, f 1.749 blessed is the tree whereby righteous∣nes commeth. So on the contrary g 1.750 Iob and h 1.751 Ieremie * 1.752 cursed the dayes wherein they were borne, & would not haue them to * 1.753 be blessed. We must likewise blesse the meates which we eate, & the things which we vse for the maintenance of this mortall life: that is, praier must be made vnto God, that they may be healthfull for vs, & we thankfull for them: by which meanes our food, & al other succors of this life are sanctified, to his pleasure & our comfort.

Since then the Scriptures not onely permit, but also command that we should blesse one another,* 1.754 and so the creatures which nourish our bodies, we make no doubt but it is both lawfull & néedfull for vs to blesse the sacraments which are the seales of Gods euerlasting promises, & therfore we readily re∣ceiue S. Pauls adiection, when he saith, the cup of blessing, WHICH WE BLESSE, is it not the cōmunion of Christs blood? Mary blessing in that place we take not for * 1.755 crossing or charming the cup with a * 1.756 set number & or∣der of signs & profers as you vse at your masse, but for the* 1.757 making of our er∣nest & hūble praiers to God, that our vnworthines do not hinder the working of his sacraments, but that by his goodnes & mercy, they may take their due effects in vs according ••o his sonnes institutiō for the pardoning of our sins, the incresing of his grace & our faith, the quikning of our inward man, & pre∣seruing both body & soul to eternal life. And this the force of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the maner of blessing all other things & persons directed by the scriptures,* 1.758 the very principles of praier & pietie do approue & cōfirm, wheras your houering & blowing ouer the Chalice, your crossing & hiding it, your rubbing of fin∣gers for feare of crums, your first thwarting, and then lifting of armes, your ioining and vnioining of thumbe and forefinger, with twenty such nicefini∣ties & curiosities, haue neither foundation nor relation to Christs action nor institution, nor to his Apostles doctrine nor doings, who knew their masters meaning, and continued their masters example with words & gestures re∣uerent & sufficient to satisfie his heauenly will and precept for this matter.

Phi.

You doe not so much as vse any words vpon the elements, but let the bread and the wine stand aloofe, as if you were afraid to touch them.

Theo.

In déede we blesse with our hearts and voices,* 1.759 not with our fingers; and there∣fore we make our account that our praiers are as forceable and as effectuall at sixe féete length as at six haires bredth. And to deal friendly with you, that blessing with mouth taketh no place, except the hand be also winding & tur∣ning the patene and chalice after your maner, we can not beléeue it afore we sée some reason for it: sorcerers and coniurers haue such circumstances, but we hope you be not of their Seminaries.

Phi.

Did not Christ take the bread & likewise the cup into his hands?

Theo.

* 1.760Yes verily. He could not BREAK it with his hand, vnles it were in his hand, neither could he GIVE it out of his hand, afore he TOOKE it into his hand.

Phil.

Then Christ TOOKE the bread & so the cup into his hands before he did consecrate, & so you do not.

Theo.

You would say before he did distribute. For breking & giuing which wer the ends of his taking, are parts of distributiō not of cōsecration.

Phi.

What blasphemy haue we heer? did Christ distribute, before he did cōsecrate the bread?

Theo.

You be so busie about blessing the host and the chalice, that you charge the sonne of God in his doings, and the euan∣gelists in their writings with blasphemy.

Phi.

Nay we charge you with blas∣phemie for saying, that Christ gaue vnconsecrated bread and wine to his dis∣ciples.

Theoph.

Doth not the Scripture say the same?* 1.761 Iesus taking bread

and giuing thanks brake (it) and gaue (it) to (his) Disciples and saide, take ye, eate ye, this is my bodie. And taking the cup and giuing thanks, he gaue (it) to them saying, drink ye all of this: for this is my blood of the new Testament,* 1.762 &c. He tooke bread, brake it and gaue it to his disciples, bidding them take it and eate it before he said this is my body. Now if these words, this is my bodie, be the words of Consecration, ergo distribution went before Consecration, and when Christ did consecrate, the bread was in his disciples, and not in his owne hands.

Phil.

But he blessed, as we call it, or as you terme it, he gaue thanks, be∣fore he brake it.

Theop.

That thanksgiuing or benediction, was not conse∣cration, as your selues confesse, and would séem to prooue by an whole * 1.763 heape of fathers: and therfore in spite of all that you do or can say, Christ did conse∣crate by word of mouth whē the disciples had the bread & cup in their hands.

Phi.

Would you haue the priest then not at al to touch the elements?

Theo.

When we diuide them, we cannot choose but touch them, as Christ did: Ma∣ry they may be sanctified by prayer and made Sacraments by repeating the words of Christ though at that instant we touch them not. And therfore your vnsound quidities that Christ blessed the very element,* 1.764 and vsed power & actiue words vpon the bread and ouer the bread, which (we) doe not, but let the bread and wine stand a loofe, and occupie the words of Christ by way of report and narration, ap∣plying them not at all to the matter proposed, these nice and new found quddities I say be méere fooleries; since the words of Consecration take their effect not from our fingers or gestures, but from Christs mouth and commandement that we should do the like.

Phil.

You neuer apply these words (this is my body) more than the whole nar∣ration of the institution, nor recite the whole otherwise than in historical maner, and for that cause you make it no Sacrament at al.

Theo.

Can you tell what you say?

Phil.

Why doubt you that?

Theo.

Because it is a wicked and blasphe∣mous lie for the priest to say, this is my bodie, otherwise than by way of re∣hearsall what Christ said. And therefore your braines be more than distem∣pered if you would haue vs or any other Christian ministers to say it other∣wise than by report, what Christ saide, and commanded vs to do in remem∣brance of him.

Phil.

Doe you thinke we meane the priest should say of his owne person,* 1.765 this is my bodie?

Theo.

If you do meane it, Bedlem is a fitter place for you than either Rhemes or Rome.

Phil.

You may be sure we do not.

Theo.

Why then reprooue you vs for repeating the words of Christ by way of re∣hearsall what he did and saide?

Phil.

You should apply them to the matter proposed.

Theo.

How? By praier precedent and consequent, or by glozing and interlacing Christs wordes with ours?

Phil.

You should actiuely and pre∣sently apply them to the elements of bread and wine.

Theo.

I must aske you the same question that I did before. The wordes were spoken by Christ in his own person, and cannot actiuely and presently be pronounced by any priest, but

by way of report what Christ saide, without apparent and horrible blasphe∣mie. And therefore the application of them in our words must either go be∣fore them or after them,* 1.766 and not exactly with them, much lesse to be compri∣sed in them.

Phil.

We tell you, you doe not apply them actiuely and presently.

Theo.

We tell you, you knowe not what you say. The words of Christ (this is my body, this is my blood) mauger all the diuels in hell must be pronounced in no mans person, but only by way of repetition what Christ at his last supper said in his owne person; and your Iesuitical nouelties of actiuely and present∣ly be so far from the soundnes of faith and substance of truth, that your selues are not able to expound what you speake.

Phil.

Yes that we are.

Theo.

So it should séeme by the readinesse of your answere.

What then is the present and actiue application, which you striue for, or which way is it made? By word of mouth, or intention of hart? The Priest when he saith, this is my body, cannot iointly with those words vtter any other words of his owne to apply them. Intention of heart cannot alter the sense of the spéech, but only direct before God the purpose of the speaker. And vnlesse the meaning of the Priest be to recite the words of Christ by way of repetition, I sée not how you can excuse either the Priests hart or mouth from outragious and monstrous impietie.

Phil.

We haue a present and actiue application of the words, which you haue not.

Theo.

What is it?

Phil.

The Priest intendeth to doe as Christ did, and therefore vttereth the words distinctly and aduisedly ouer the ele∣ments that are in his hands and vnder his eies, which you doe not.

Theo.

What you list to do is no care of ours; if you can shew vs any thing in Christs institution, which we haue not, we wil giue you the hearing: otherwise to ad your ceremonies to his commandements, we mind it not. We knowe you crosse the creatures at benedixit, and hold your noses ••o néere the bread when you say, hoc est corpus meum, that the breath of your mouthes euen warmeth the host, but our beliefe is, that his mightie word, not your vnpausing spéech or intentiue lookes performeth the Sacrament. And therfore your blowing Christs words vpon the bread is rather a magicall incantation, than any ef∣fectuall application of them to the elements; and if you hold that his word is too weake to endue the visible signe with inuisible grace, except it be backed by your blowing and crossing, we say you be proud disciples, no right appli∣ers of his heauenly word and power.

Phil.

We do not help his words as if they were of themselues weake: but we apply them to the elements in this present and actiue maner, which you do not: for when you recite the words, a man cannot tell whether you speake them, to trie your memories, or to cōsecrate the mysteries, you be so far from vsing any gestures or action that should import application.

Theop.

The purpose of our hearts wel knowen vnto God, and made open vnto men whē we call them to the Lords table; the praiers which we make before we come

to the words of Christ, directly and plainely tending to that end; the placing of the bread and the cup in our and their sight; the mentioning of Christes institution and commandement that we should follow his example, and continue that remembrance of him; the duetifull and reuerent rehearsing the words which he spake, as the holy Ghost did penne them; this demon∣stration and supplication that we receiuing THESE THY creatures of bread and wine according to thy Sonne our Sauiour Iesus Christes insti∣tution in remembrance of his death and passion may be partakers of his most blessed bodie and blood, vsed immediatly before we repeate the words of Christ; the breaking and giuing of the bread, and so likewise the cup, immediatly after they be sanctified, and offering them to each commu∣nicant in remembrance of Christes bodie that was broken, and blood that was shed, to purchase the remission of their sinnes, thereby to preserue them body and soule to euerlasting life;* 1.767 the praiers I say precedent, the prepara∣tion euident, the direction adherent, the distribution consequent are signes enough to hym that hath but eares or eyes, that we presently, purposely, publikely execute Christes institution; and other hooking and haling of Christes words to the elements by crossing, crouching, gaping and blowing on them, as your manner is, we acknowledge none to be required or expres∣sed in the Lords Supper.

Philand.

It is no Sacrament, but (as Saint Augustine saith) when the words come, that is to say, actiuely and presently be applied to the elements.

Theoph.

We know that to be most true which S. Augustine saith,* 1.768 Accedit verbum ad e∣lementum, & fit Sacramentum, when the word commeth to the element, the Sacrament is perfite: but what haue your termes (actiuely and pre∣sently) to do with Saint Austens speach? yea what place could you choose more repugnant to your fansies than this which you bring? The element without the word, is a weake and corruptible creature: put the word to it, and then it becommeth a Sacrament.

Philand.

You marke not the force of the verbe Accedit:* 1.769 which signifieth the word must come so néere, that it must euen touch the element.

Theoph.

Can you tell vs how words may touch elements?

Philand.

What else? By actiue and present applica∣tion.

Theoph.

This is your old song, which we would haue you turne to some plainer note. What kind of application meane you? with the breath of your mouths, motion of your hands, or cogitation of your hearts? You may blowe vppon the bread and wyne, but there is some difference be∣twéene the sounde of your voyce,* 1.770 and the breath of your loongs, if you looke a little but to Aristotles Predicamentes, and therefore your breath may touche the elements, your woords can not. Much lesse can your fin∣gers apply your speach either actiuely or presently to the elements: you must runne to the inward intention of the mynd, and that may direct your purpose in speaking, as it dooth ours, but not actiuely apply your spéech to come néerer the elements in your masse than in our communion.

And so the comming of the word to the element in Saint Austen, to perfite a Sacrament, helpeth you to prooue your reall and manuall application of Christs words in your Masse as much as chaulke doth to make chéese, when curds are wanting.

Yea rather if you reade on but foure lines, you shall find your follies flatly refuted by Saint Augustine, and a cleare resolution for vs that not vttering but beleeuing the words of Christ giueth force to the Sacraments. In the water (of Baptisme) saith he,* 1.771 it is the word that clenseth. Take away the word, and what is water but water? Then commeth that which you cite, Accedit verbum ad elementum, & fit Sacramentum. Put the word to the ele∣ment and then is it a Sacrament. Vnde ista tanta virtus aquae vt corpus tangat & cor abluat, nisi faciente verbo? non quia dicitur, sed quia creditur. Nam & in ipso verbo aliud est sonus transiens, aliud virtus manens:* 1.772 Whence hath the wa∣ter this vertue to touch the body, and wash the soule, but by the power of the word? not in that it is spoken, but in that it is beleeued: for in the word it selfe the sound passing is one thing, (and that little woorth) the vertue remaining is another thing. If the word of Christ do not worke in that it is spoken, much lesse in that it is actiuely or exquisitely spoken with square conueiance and nimble gestures, the lacke of which is the grea∣test fault you can find with our Sacraments.

Philand.

This is no small fault, but yet not the greatest.

Theoph.

You should haue laid foorth in writing what circumstances are required to your actiue application of Christes words, and then you might haue béene answe∣red with more perspicuitie. Wheras now your obiecting vnto vs the breach of Christes institution in certaine metaphysicall and supermysticall termes,* 1.773 neither opened by your selues, nor vnderstood of others, is but a Iesuiticall deuise to make a brable about words, and to get the simple in the meane time to mistrust some-what in our doctrine and doings, though they nor you sée no iust cause to mislike: But to be short with you, if the repelling of your actiue and slipper gestures and hauiours that we might embrace the will and commandement of the high and mightie God, be a fault, we haue com∣mitted many foule faults in this and all other parts of our profession; other∣wise in pride and presumption you mingle your fansies with the precepts of Christ: and when we reiect the one, as we lawfully may, you charge vs with contempt of the other, which we exactly follow, and this you vtter in such darke and doubtfull speach, that it is harder for vs to vnderstand you than refute you.

Philand.

Do we not speake plaine enough, when we say you imitate not Christ neither in vnleauened bread, nor in mingling water with wine: as he did?

Theoph.

You deale now plainely, if you dealt also truly, but that you do not. In what bread Christ ministred the Sacrament, may perchance be coniec∣tured; but no such thing is expressed in the Gospell, much lesse prescribed for vs to follow. Since the Scripture saith, he tooke bread, and maketh

no distinction what bread he tooke, nor limiteth what bread we should take, we be left at libertie, so we take bread, to take either leauened or vnleaue∣ned, as occasion serueth vs. This conclusion Gregorie the first confesseth to be most true.* 1.774 Tam azimum quàm fermentatum dum sumimus, vnum corpus Do∣mini saluatoris efficimur: Whether it be leauened or vnleauened bread that we take, we are made one body of (our) Lord and Sauiour. The whole Church of Rome not yet an. 150. yéeres ago cōfessed as much in the councell of Florence.* 1.775 Their words are: Item in azimo siue fermētato pane triticeo corpus Christi veraciter confici, Sacerdotés{que} in altero ipsum Domini corpus conficere debe∣re, vnumquem{que} scilicet iuxta suae ecclesiae siue Occidentalis, siue Orientalis consue∣tudinem. We define the body of Christ to be truly consecrated in wheaten bread, whether it be vnleauened or leauened, and that the Priests are bound to consecrate the Lords bodie in either of the twaine, euery man according to the custome of his Church, be it West or East.

Phil.

That custome you breake. For where the west Church did alwaies consecrate in vnleauened bread, and the East Church in leauened, you re∣nounce the order of the west Church in which you liue, and to spite the su∣preme Pastor of the west parts,* 1.776 yea rather of the whole world, you follow the manner of that Church, which is many thousand miles distant from you.

Theoph.

We are reasoning of Christs institution, not of customes or Churches: and your holy Father himselfe affirmeth that to be no breach of Christs ordinance, which you haue noted against vs in your Rhemish obser∣uations as a transgression of the first and originall institution of the Lords supper. And so whiles you egarly and rashly persue vs, to trippe vs in some∣what, your owne Churches and Councels condemne you for wranglers.

Phil.

In the other part of the Sacrament you contemne Christ and his Church much more impudently and damnably. For Christ and all the Apostles and all Ca∣tholike churches in the world haue euer mixed their wine with water, for great my∣sterie and signification, specially for that water gushed togither with blood out of our Lords side. This our Lord did (saith S. Cyprian epist. 63. ad Cecilium, nu. 4.7.) and none rightly offereth, that followeth not him therein. Thus Irenaeus (lib. 5. cap. 1.) Iustine (Apol. 2. in fine) and all the fathers testifie the Primatiue church did, and in this sort it is done in all the Masses of the Greekes, S. Iames, S. Basils, S. Chrysostomes: and yet (you) pretending to reduce all to Christ, will not do as he did, and all the Apostles and churches that euer were.

Theo.

Their faces must be well stéeled that are harder than yours; the whore of Babylon that hatched both your frierly profession and religion, hath taught you long since to leaue off blushing, and fall to bragging.

We mingle not water with the wine which we consecrate: this is impu∣dently and damnably done say you. You néede more water with your wine, your toongs burne so hoat with your impudent lies and damnable lies, that an whole streame will skant coole them.

Phi.

Christ and all the apostles, & all catho∣like churches in the world haue euer mixed their wine with water: you will not of

very frowardnes: do you not deserue to haue hoate words?

Theop.

* 1.777We forbid no man to temper his wine with water, if he find ei∣ther himselfe annoied with the vse of méere wine, or the wine of it selfe to be headie and strong: yea we rather wish all men, if the wine prouided for the Lords table be hoat and fuming, to delay it, that it may be mild and tem∣perate, least that which is taken to sanctifie the soule, happen to distemper and hurt the body: and we greatly commend the wisedome of Christes Church in former ages, where the wines were fierie, and communions dai∣ly (as in the noblest and chiefest partes of christendome in those daies) for de∣laying her wine with water,* 1.778 that the very element might serue for sobrie∣tie, as well as y^e word for increasing of sanctity: But y^e Christ, or his Apostles vsed water with the wine which they hallowed, or commanded others to mingle both wine and water in this mysterie, or that the Church of Christ euer taught it to be a necessary part of this Sacrament, that we deny: That if you proue, we will acknowledge & amend our error, which as yet we take to be none, by reason we find it a thing lawfull, but not néedefull to be done, and estéeme it in them as a matter rather of temperance, than of conscience.

Phil.

They did it for great mystery and signification, as Cyprian in an whole epistle teacheth you: and they tooke their paterne from Christ himselfe, of whom Cyprian saith.* 1.779 This our Lord did, and none offereth rightly that followeth not him therein.

Theop.

You peruert Cyprian, as you do all things else that come through your hands.* 1.780 Cyprian intendeth not in that epistle to prooue that Christ had water in the cup, when he deliuered the same to his disciples, but he refuteth the Aquarij, that ministred the com∣munion in water alone; and against them he prooueth that Christ had wine and not water for the Sacrament of his blood: and then inferreth, to that ef∣fect which you alleadge, This the Lord did (that is he tooke wine to resemble his blood) and none offereth rightly that followeth not him therein.

Phil.

Nay Cyprian hath plaine words, that Christ mingled wine and water both together. His words are, At enim non manè sed post coenam mixtum calicem obtulit Dominus.* 1.781 Our Lord offered (his) chalice mingled (with wa∣ter and wine) not in the morning but after supper. And againe, Qua in parte inuenimus calicem mixtum fuisse, quem Dominus obtulit. By which part (of Christes speech) we find the chalice that our Lord offered, was ming∣led (with wine and water.)

Theop.

* 1.782We doubt not that Cyprian calleth the cup, which Christ offered, mixtus calix, but his meaning, we say, was to ex∣presse that Christ had wine, in the cup which he gaue, and therefore if any man minister the Lords cup not mingled with wine, he followeth not the Lords steps.

Phil.

Cyprian saith there must be water as well as wine.

Theo.

But whē he alleadgeth Christes example that the cup must be mingled, he meaneth the mixture of wine & not of water. And so he expoundeth himself very often in that epistle.* 1.783 Calix, qui inebriat, vtique vino mixtus est: the cup which

maketh drunke no doubt is mixed with wine. And againe, * 1.784 A Domino admoniti & instructi sumus, vt calicem Dominicum vino mixtum, secundum quod Dominus obtulit, offeramus. We be taught and instructed by the Lord that we should offer the Lords cup mingled with wine according as the Lord did offer it.* 1.785 So that the commistion which Cyprian requireth by vertue of Christs institution, is not of water which at that present was not in questi∣on, but of wine, which by the olde Testament he prooueth, was foretolde of Christ, that he should offer; and by the new he sheweth that he did offer in the cup which he deliuered to the twelue Apostles. You therefore abuse Cy∣prians words, when you bring them to prooue that Christ had water as wel as wine, and that if we leaue out either, we follow not Christs example, for he namely vrgeth Christs action for the vse of wine, and that if we omit, we violate the Lords institution.

Philan.

Cyprians reason will declare that he speaketh of both; and his words to that ende are so manifest that we maruel you wil stand in it. Thus he saith,* 1.786 In sanstificando calice Domini offerri aqua sola non potest, quomodo nec vinum solum potest. Nam si vinum tantum quis offerat, sanguis Christi incipit esse sine nobis: si verò aqua sit sola, plebs incipit esse sine Christo. In sanctifying our Lordes chalice, water alone may not bee offered, as also not wine alone. For if a man offer wine alone, the bloode of Christ begin∣neth to bee there without vs. And if water alone, (be offered) the people beginne to bee (in the cup) with-out Christ. And therefore he resolueth,* 1.787 Quando in calice vino aqua miscetur, Christo populus adunatur. When water is mixed in the chalice with wine, then the people is vnited vnto Christ.

Theo.

Sir we neuer denied that Cyprian spake of water in one part of the Sacrament, and to continue the vse thereof alluded to the mysticall in∣terpretation of water, which Saint Iohn maketh in his Reuelation, when he saith,* 1.788 The waters, which thou sawest where the whoore (of Babylon) sitteth, are peoples, multitudes, Nations and tongues; but it is one thing to alledge Christs institution for the necessitie of hauing water in the sa∣cred cup, which Cyprian did not, and an other thing to play with figures and allegories as Cyprian doth,* 1.789 when he sheweth what water may signi∣fie. That Christ mixed water with wine at his last Supper, no Scripture reporteth, and the Gospell kéeping silence, no man can iustly prooue it: And therefore Cyprian neyther did, nor could auouch any such thing: but that water was and might be vsed in the Church of GOD, and in Saint Iohns vision of the whoore of Babylon was parabolically taken for nations and countries, this we can graunt both to you and to Cyprian without any preiudice.

And yet I must let you vnderstand that neither this kind of prouing by pa∣rables is alwais sound, nor this collection, y^t without water y^e people is not fi∣gured in the Lords cup, is any néedful point of christian religiō. For Cyprian

himselfe elsewhere sheweth that wine alone in the Lords cup, though no wa∣ter be added, resembleth the people vnited to Christ far better than water, & that resemblance is alledged & subscribed vnto by S. Augustine, the other is not. * 1.790When the Lord called his body, bread, that is made of the kneading together of many corns, he declareth the vnion of our people whose bur∣den he bare. And when he called his blood, wine, which is pressed out of many kernels and clusters of grapes, and gathered into one liquor, he sig∣nifieth also our flocke coupled with the permixtion of a multitude con∣ioined. And this way he saith, * 1.791 the Lords sacrifices declare the vnitie of Christians knit togither with firme & inseparable charitie: whose words S. Austen repeateth and commendeth * 1.792 writing against the Donatists. And vseth the very same in a Sermon of his owne concerning this matter. a 1.793 As to make the visible kinde of bread, many cornes are kneaded into one (lump of dough) so also of the wine, brethren call to your memories how it is made one. Many grapes hang in the cluster, but their iuice runneth into one liquor. Wherupon he concludeth that the Lord hath consecrated at his table the mysterie of our peace and vnitie.

* 1.794This similitude is grounded on the nature of the elements, and significa∣tion of the Sacraments, the other is not: and that the faithfull be not ioined to Christ their head in this mysterie, but by mingling water with wine, this doctrine is neither safe, nor true, by the confession of either side, yours & ours: especially yours, for you exclude the people not only from the water, but also from the wine, and yet by the bread alone you suppose them to be coupled and vnited to Christ their head: and we for our side confesse, that both parts alike doe knit vs vnto Christ, as well the bread as the cup, and that not the mixing or tempering of either element, but the due receiuing of both doth incorpo∣rate vs into Christ.

Phil.

Then you refuse this saying of Cyprians as vntrue.

Theo.

We can giue Cyprian leaue to dally with allegories, and to allude to the mingling of water & wine then vsed in the Church: but we can not giue you leaue to de∣riue it from Christs institution, and to make it an essentiall part of the Sa∣crament. And yet you crosse Cyprians authoritie more than we doe. For where the mixing of water with wine is required by Cyprian, that the peo∣ple and not the Priests onely, might be ioined with Christ in that part of the mysterie, you retain the action, and frustrate the signification, by taking both wine and water from the people of God: and therby shew that your mixture is wholy superfluous as not directed to that end, which Cyprian speaketh of, but rather to the contrary.

* 1.795And of all others you may least indure Cyprians comparison, for he saith, that after cōsecration, as Christ is in the wine, so the people is in the water: and if you transubstantiate the water into the people, as you do the wine into Christ, and bring them within the compasse of your chalice, you had néede of a chalice as wide as the church, or else you shall shrewdly throng them toge∣ther.

Your doctrine therefore reiecteth the meaning and saying of Cyprian, more than ours; and with more pride: we hauing the gospel for our discharge when we say that Christ commanded no mixture in his last Supper:* 1.796 & your owne Schooles with one consent to affirme with vs, that water is no neces∣sarie part of this Sacrament.

The Gospell in plaine spéech reporteth of our Sauiour, that he dranke the fruit of the vine. His owne words are, b 1.797 I say vnto you I will not drinke henceforth of this fruit of the vine: c 1.798 which surely, saith Chrysostom, yeel∣deth wine and not water. Your owne Schooles conclude flatly with vs a∣gainst you. d 1.799 Non est aqua vino miscenda de necessitate Sacramenti. To mingle water with wine is no necessarie point of (this) Sacrament. Water by the position of your owne Schooles is not necessary, then of consequent arbitra∣ry: that is euery church hath ful liberty to vse wine alone, as Christ did, with out danger of departing or dissenting frō the primatiue church, though they for some respects delaied their wine with water and the Sacrament is as perfect, and as consonant to Christs institution without the mixture of wa∣ter, as with it.

Phi.

That Christ vsed wine we do not deny, but we auouch that he also min∣gled it with water.

Theo.

We knowe you auouch it, but we would sée you proue it.

Phi.

Cyprian saith it.

Theo.

Cyprian saith it not; he saith rather the contrarie.* 1.800 Inuenimus vinum fuisse quod sanguinem suum dixit. We finde it was wine,* 1.801 which (the Lord) called his blood. And againe: Cum dicat Christus, ego sum vitis vera, sanguis Christi non aqua est vtique sed vinum. Wheras Christ saith, I am a true vine, surely the blood of Christ is not water but wine. And againe he saith,* 1.802 that Noë typum futurae veritatis ostendens, non aquam sed vinum biberit, foreshewing a figure of the truth that should follow dranke not water, but wine.

Phi.

Not water alone, but mixed with wine.

Theo.

Then all that Cyprian either pretendeth or alledgeth Christ insti∣tution for, is the hauing of wine, & not of water: and though he vse the words mixtus and miscere very often, yet his meaning is to proue by scripture the adding of wine, not of water to the Lords cup.

Phi.

He nameth both wine & water as I haue shewed you.

Theo.

And as I haue answered you, both were lawful, and then vsed in the church: but Christs institution is vrged by him for wine and not for water: and though he call the cup (mixtus) mingled, be∣cause there might be and were then both in vse, yet the scriptures which he citeth concerning this Sacrament, and the figures which he bringeth make cléerely for wine,* 1.803 and not for water: And therefore that Christ mingled wa∣ter at his last Supper, or commanded vs so to doe, can not be prooued by Cy∣prian, nor any other learned and ancient father: but that the church of Christ tempered her wine with water (though not in all places, nor at all times as your boasting vaine serueth you to affirme) that we grant may be proued by Cyprian and others, and was euer confessed by vs: mary that is not our que∣stion. You charge vs with the breaches of Christs institutiō, in which and in

euery part of which,* 1.804 there is an absolute necessitie, that you should proue if you could tell which way to do it, but your loftie words and weake proofes haue no coherence; you speake it in state, as if it were more than Gospell, and when you come to bring foorth your proofes, you wrest a poore place of Cyprians, and so take your leaues.

Phil.

We bring you S. Iames Masse, which in expresse termes affirmeth that Christ after Supper taking the cup and mingling it with wine & wa∣ter, sanctified it, blessed it, and gaue it to his Disciples.

Theop.

Of Iames Masse,* 1.805 I haue spoken before: In such rotten records, neither receiued nor regarded in the Church of Christ,* 1.806 till errour and ignorance grew so great, that the Pastours could not or would not discerne fables from truths, and forgeries from sincerities, lieth the summe of your late Rhemish religion; but take back your Monkish corruptions, and let vs haue likely testimonies for that you say, or none; you may alleage S. Iames Gospell which is yet ex∣tant, with as good credit, as S. Iames Masse: and so the Gospels of Nicode∣mus, Thomas,* 1.807 Andrew, Barnabas, and Bartholomew, or if those like you not, the Acts of Peter, Philip and Andrew, and the Reuelations of Paul, Ste∣uen, and Thomas;* 1.808 for these be of the very same mint and stamp, that Iames Masse, and the Apostles canons and constitutions are; but knowe you Sir, that as Heretikes and other idle persons forged these things in their names, so the Church of Christ euer reiected them as false and hereticall, and suffered no christians to ground their actions or doctrines on such corruptiōs.

Phil.

Sainct Basils Masse confirmeth the same. The words are: Likewise taking the cup of the fruite of the grape,* 1.809 & mingling it, & giuing thanks, and blessing,* 1.810 and sanctifieng it, he gaue it to his holy Disciples.

Theoph.

A pigge of the same sow. They that would offer to broach their fansies in the Apostles names, would neuer sticke at the Fathers works. It is easie to put Ambrose, Austens, Basils and Chrysostoms names to any thing; and yet the word which is vsed in Basils Liturgie doth not conuince the mingling of water with wine, and Chrysostoms Liturgie doth apparently shew that water was mingled with wine for the people long after consecration, and yet before distribution, which argueth my saying to be most true, that they delaied their wine for sobrietie, they did not mixe it for any mysterie.

Phil.

Sainct Basill, I am sure, saith Miscens: Christ mingling (the wine) gaue it to his disciples.

Theo.

* 1.811The Gréek words for miscens & mixtus, if they come from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, do not alwaies signifie y^e mingling of water with wine, but generally the tempering or pouring out of wine for him that shall drinke, though none other kind of liquour be added to it. Erasmus giueth that obseruation vpon the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; and Sainct Iohn so vseth it whē he sayeth,* 1.812 He shall drinke of the wine of the wrath of God, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which is mixed (or poured) without mingling into the cup of his wrath: where 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 being without mixture, is said to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, mingled or rather infused into the cup of Gods wrath.

Upon which spéech Erasmus noteth. Graecis 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 dicitur quod infunditur in calicem bibituro, etiamsi non aqua diluatur aut alio potus genere. The Grecians call that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 when (any thing) is powred into a cup for him that shall drinke,* 1.813 though it be not delaied with water, or any other kind of li∣quour. In this sense manie of the Fathers that wrate in Gréeke may vse 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and yet no mingling with water can be inferred vpon those words, as your interpreters ouer gréedily imagine.

Phil.

You pare the words of Saint Basils Liturgie, but Saint Iames Masse is so manifest for Christes mingling water with wine, that you are faine to deny the worke.

Theo.

If the Church of Christ did receiue it, I will not deny it: but if they knew no such monument, why should you be suffered now to sort vs out what forgeries you list for Apostolike labours?

Phil.

The sixth generall councell vnder Iustinian, receiued the * 1.814 Masse of S. Iames and S. Basill as authentike: and proued by their * 1.815 authorities against the Ar∣menians vsing wine alone in the mysteries, that Christ had both water and wine in his sacrifice.

Theo.

That councell, which you cite, was neither the sixt generall, nor any generall councell at all. It was celebrated 700. and odde yeares after Christ, by which time it may be, Iames his Liturgie was gotten into some credite amongst them: and yet they alleadge neither of them for Christes institution, but only that deliuering the Church seruice in writing 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.816 they taught that order to perfit the sacred cup with wine and water in the diuine ministration.

Philand.

Call you the credite of that councell also in question?

Theo.

I might well do it,* 1.817 if I would but follow the iudgement either of your néerest friends, or of those that liued next to the time when this councell was cal∣led. Surius the great Soultan of your side sayeth, that some of those are thought to be Supposititij vel Graecorum temeritate deprauati: either forged, or depraued by the rashnesse of the Grecians. And Theophanes who wrate not long after the kéeping of the councell, sayeth that those are falsly sayd to be the canons of the sixt councell, and giueth this hard iudgement of them: vt enim in caeteris omnibus falsitatis arguuntur,* 1.818 ita in hac re quoque mentiuntur: as in all other things they be taken tardie with falsehood, so in this also they make a lie: But for our parts we sée no reason to deale so rigorousely with them. They were but a prouinciall councell, if they were any councell at all: for we haue nothing left but the canons and those contradicted by name. Next the makers liued more than 700. yeares after Christ, and might soone be deceiued by the titles and shewes of these Liturgies: Lastly, what corruptions haue crept since either into the canons or into the Litur∣gies we know not, and in those cases which the Gospell exactly reporteth as it dooth the Lords Supper, we beléeue no man against or without the Gos∣pell.

And that in Chrysostoms Liturgie water was mingled long after con∣secration

for the people to drinke,* 1.819 the booke it selfe will shew you: where the words of Christes institution being repeated thrée leaues before, when the time for the Priests and people to communicate approched, it is said, Acci∣piunt Diaconi sacros calices praestolantes cum feruente aqua venientem Subdiaco∣num. Tunc infundit aquam calidam quantum sufficit. Deinde sumit corpus Domini∣cum. The Deacons take the sacred cups or chalices, expecting the Deacon that bringeth water (that hath) boiled. Then he powreth in (to the cha∣lices) warme water so much as sufficeth,* 1.820 and after receiueth the Lords body. Now Sir with all your cunning tell vs for what signification and mysterie, water that had sodde, was powred into the chalice after consecra∣tion, if not to temper and delay the headinesse of the wine before the priest or people did drinke of it: and if your braines be not mingled with too much me∣lancholie, you will perceiue, that could be no part of Christs institution.

Phi.

We find no such thing in Chrysostoms Masse.

Theo.

It were maruel that I should find it, and not you.

Phil.

Reade his Liturgie translated by E∣rasmus, and if you find it I will giue you this hand.

Theo.

Your hand will do me no good: I had rather you should confesse a truth than hazard a ioint. Reade Chrysostoms Liturgy which Leo Thuscus translated into the Latin tongue, and Claudius de Saintes, a man of your Religion hath set foorth of Plantines Presse 1560. and if you find not the words, as I repeat them, re∣turne thē to me for masterlesse creatures, which I would be loth you should.

Phil.

But mention is made in the very beginning of the same Liturgie, that the priest mixed water with wine before consecration.

Theo.

It may be the priest did temper that which himselfe should drincke, before consecrati∣on. But after consecration, before the rest of the Clergie or the people did communicate, they delaied it with water in such sort as I tell you: what the cause was, iudge you.

Phil.

Why this was done, I can not so well say, but this I know, that all catholike churches in the world haue euer mixed their wine with water.

Theo.

* 1.821Had they so done, yet so long as they did it for sobrietie, not for necessi∣tie, it nothing concerneth Christes institution, which we labour to restore, nor bindeth any man as a matter of religion or cōscience: but now your flan∣ting humor swelleth aboue truth and measure when you say all Churches in the world haue euer obserued the same.

Phil.

Name one age or place that hath not done it.

Theo.

That is the way indéed to cast the burden on other mens shoulders, which your selues should beare: and yet we can soone choake you with an instance, and that by the verie confession of your owne fellowes.

* 1.822 Alexander septimus à Petro Pontifex conse••raturus primus aquam vino miscuit, instituít{que} vt ex azimo, non fermentato vt antea consueuit fieret pane. Alexander the seuenth from Peter, was the first, saith Polydore, that mingled water with wine at consecration, and ordained that the oblation should be of vnleauened bread, and not of leauened, as till that time was vsed. Lo Sir the whole church of Christ in all y^e Apostles times vsed wine alone, & an hun∣dred

yeares after Christ beganne the first admixtion of water with wine, and vse of vnleauened bread in the Lordes supper; which you with forgerie vnder Iames name would father on Christ himself; though he in the Gospel with his owne mouth deny it.

For countries we can giue you the like. The Armenians for 1145. yeares after Christ died leauened bread, and mingled no water with their wine at the Lordes ••akle. See the report of Otho Frisingensis in whose time they began to hearken to the church of Rome. Their Metropolitane had vnder him * 1.823 a thowsand Bishops: and in some things agreed, in some things dissented from the Greeke church. Where amongst other things, he sayth of the whole coun∣trie of Armen••a: * 1.824 Ponunt fermentatum panem sicut illi: aquam autem, vino non mis∣cent, sicut nos & illi. They vse leauened bread (in the Lordes supper) as the Grecians do: mary they mingle no water with their wine, as both we & the Grecians do.

These bee your famous obiections which you exaggerate, as if they were some mighty breaches of Christ ordinaunce, wherein to let passe the holde which wee haue in the Gospell,* 1.825 being thereby cleared from your pelting quarelles in the eyes of all men that euer reade the wordes of Christ, if your owne Schooles in eyther or any of these thinges which you oppose, goe not cleare with vs, that they bee no partes of Christes institution, wee will yeelde to the fault and correct that ouersight. If they doe, then let your friends conceiue what truth there is in your m••uthes, and what credit is to bee giuen to your wrangling obseruations sent vs lately from Rhemes, wherein without all shame and care, you refute, not vs, but your selues and your owne conclusi∣ons, that you might say somewhat against vs, before the simple and vnlearned, were it otherwise neuer so false or foolish, and euen contrary to your own Prin∣ciples.

But you did well to beginne first: you sawe howe plainely you were to bee taken tardie with many wilfull and ine••cusable breaches of Christes institu∣tion, and therefore you thought it safest to make the salie first on vs,* 1.826 that whiles we were occupied in defending our own, we should desist from impug∣ning your Masse, which is nowe nothing else but an heape of sinnefull de∣uises and abuses inuented by Satan, and broached by Antichrist, to deface and frustrate the Lordes supper.

Phi.

Who can abide your blasphemies against the blessed Masse?

Theo.

Call you that bl••ssed, where besides your * 1.827 fruitlesse prayers and * 1.828 superstitious ceremonies: your prin••••e & halfe comm••nion subuerte••h ••he Lords inst••tution, your * 1.829 sacrifice derogateth from his death and bloodshedding your * 1.830 adoration of bread & wine conuinceth you of hainous & open Idolatrie?

Phi.

Th••se words declare your fury.

Theo.

Those deedes shew foorth your pie••••e.

Phi.

You can not proue so much as one of these things which you obiect.

Theo.

If we moue not euery one of them; we will acquite you from them all

Phi.

That shall you neuer do.

Theo.

So must you say though it bee neuer so plaine: but to the point.

* 1.831Where learned you, tha•• ••he Priest might celebrate the Lordes Supper o∣penly in the church, wit•••••••• any man to communicate with him, the people standing by, and gasing on h••m? The Gospell is against you: for Christ took bread, and when hee had giuen thankes hee brake it, and gaue it to the Disciples: you breake the bread in your priuate Masse for fashions sake, but to whom doe you giue it? Giuing is a part of the Lordes supper, as wel as brea∣king. If it bee needefull to breake the bread, because Christ did so: wee conclude it as needfull to giue th•• bread, because he did both: and the bread is a 1.832broken, as Augustine affirmeth, to be diuided: In vaine then is it broken if it be not giuen.

This the wordes that next insue, confirme. Accipite, edite, take ye, eate ye. The wordes bee plurall: ergo they bee neither truly repeated, nor dulie followed,* 1.833 except others receiue with the Priest. For his person and action is wholy singular, and so perforce you must either chaunge the wordes of Christs institution, which is no way lawfull: or increase the number of communicants, which euerteth your priuate Masse. b 1.834 We are all partakers of one bread, saith Paul, describing thereby the Lordes Supper: and with you no man is parta∣ker besides the Priest. c 1.835 When you come togither to eate (the Lords sup∣per) tarie one for an other, that ye come not together vnto condemnation, which the Apostle d 1.836 spake of this Sacrament, as you hearde out of Augu∣stine. To li••le purpose stay you for them, which shall eate nothing when they come. e 1.837The Lordes supper ought to be common to all, because he gaue the Sacramentes equally to all his Disciples, that were present: and your Masse is priuate to the Priest alone. Call you this an imitation of the Lordes Supper, or a perfourmance of his will, when you frustrate the very wordes which hee spake, and neglect the chiefest thing which himselfe did at his table? f 1.838 Doe this, sayth Christ, in remembraunce of mee: that is neither omit, nor alter you this institution, but in all pointes doe that, which I did before you: which you doe not, & therefore as yet we see not how you can excuse your selues from a plaine contempt of Christ and his ordinance.

Phi.

Is this all you can say?

Theo.

This is more than you yet haue answe∣red, or, as I think, can for all your crakes.

Phi.

It is answered with a word.

The.

Such a word it may be, that it will worke miracles; but in the meane time how keepe you Christs institution?

Phi.

* 1.839All the circumstances of time, person and place, which in Christes action are noted, neede not to bee mitated. As that the Sacrament shoulde bee ministred at night, to men onely, to only twelue, after supper and such like: because (as S. Cyprian epist. 63. nu. 7. & S. Aug. epist. 118. nu. 6, note) there were causes of those acci∣dentes in Christ, that are not nowe to bee alleadged for vs.

Theo.

That which you say is true, but it serueth not your turn. The circum∣stances of time, as whether at night or in the morning: of place, as whether in church or in chamber: of person, as whether men or women: twelue, or any o∣ther number: these things we grant be wholy in different. The reason is. The

Lord neither in his speech, nor in his actions which he commaunded vs to imi∣tate, did comprise any of these particulars.* 1.840 He tooke bread, he gaue thanks, he brake it, and eate it, saieng, this is my body. The cup likewise he tooke, and when he had giuen thanks he gaue it them, drinke ye all of this, this is my blood of the new Testament. * 1.841 Do this in remembraunce of me. These things be essential parts of the Lords supper commaunded by him to be followed of vs. These if you neglect, you neither obey his precept, nor celebrate his supper, but prophanely and wickedly thrust his ordinance out at doores that your owne de∣uises may take place.

Phi.

His words, * 1.842 this is my body, this is my blood of the new Testamēt, &c. are essentiall parts of this mystery, and so are the elements: for in these two con∣sist the matter and forme of the sacrament.

The.

And what are his ac••ions? be not they likewise essential parts of his supper?

Phi.

What actions meane you?

Theo.

Giuing thāks, breaking, giuing, eating, drinking; w^tout which it is not the Lords supper.

Phi.

These be certain accidents which our Sauior then vsed, they be not of the essence of the sacrament.

Theo.

With what words did he com∣mand vs to continue this memoriall of him?

Phi.

Do this for a commemoratiō of me.

Theo.

Let it be, in remēbrance of me, or for a cōmemoration of mee, whether you wil, so you take not commemoration for Dirges: which Christ needeth not, since he liueth & raigneth in the glory of God his ••ather; the Greeke is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. For the remembrance of me: but the first part of the sen∣tence is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Do ye this.

Phi.

It is so, what then?

Theo.

He that charged his Apostles & in them all others, to do what he did, taught them that his acti∣ons were essentiall to his Supper as well as words. He did not wil them to say this, but to doe this in remembrance of him.

Phi.

Do you not thinke the repeating and vsing of his words to be necessarie in the celebration of the Sacrament?* 1.843

Theo.

Yeas, but I adde that his actions are as necessary.

Phi.

There is difference betweene the making of a medicine or the substance and ingredience of it, and the taking of it.

Theo.

There is: but whē the medicine is neuer so well made if it be not ministred to the patient, the making of it is vtterly vaine.

Phi.

Yet the making of it, is not the ministring of it.

Theo.

The one is the end of the other, and therfore without the ministring the making is superfluous.* 1.844

Phi.

Then taking and eating is not the substance, or being, or ma∣king of the sacrament or sacrifice of Christs body and blood, but it is the vse & applica∣tion to the receiuer, of the things that were made & offered to God before.

Theo.

Nei∣ther did I say that eating and drinking were the substantial partes of the sacra∣ment, but of the Lords institution.

Phi.

As though the sacrament were not our Lords institution.

Theo.

Christes institution containeth as well the vse as the matter or forme that must be vsed. A supper is not only the meate prouided, but also the act of eating that which is prouided; & so the Lords institution or Sup∣per imploieth the vse and action as well as the word and elements.

Phi.

The vse of it is to be a sacrifice, as well as a sacrament: and in a sacrifice, offering is rather required than eating.

Theo.

That is the way to correct the son

of God, who saide not,* 1.845 take this and offer it, but take this and eate it. Eating which Chr••st commaunded, you neglect; offering which ••e did not commaunde, you esteeme; and yet you would bee followers of Christ.

Phi.

Did not Christ▪ say to his Disciples Do this?

Theo.

You knowe we presse you with that say∣ing of his.

Ph••.

Doe this, that is * 1.846offer this.

Theo.

So you say, but where saith Christ so?

Phi.

Doubt you whether this bee a sacrifice?

Theo.

We talke not what names the Lordes supper may be called by, but what wordes Christ v∣sed.

Phi.

H•• s••ide Doe this.

Theo.

To wit that which he did before, for so the demonstratiue bindet•• the sense.

Phi.

And what if Christ sacrificed himselfe, as he sate at table?

Theo.

〈◊〉〈◊〉 must come to that issue, or else your sacrificing is cleane without Christs commaunding.

Phi.

Christ himsel••e seemeth to mention some such thing, when hee sayeth, * 1.847 This is my body, which is (not which shalbe) broken for you. And this is my blood * 1.848 which is shed (not which shall be shed) for many for remission of sinnes. If this were not a sacrifice, w••at was it?

Theo.

It was the forete••∣ling of that which was then at hand presently to ensue.

Phi.

Christ vsed the pre∣sent and not the future tense.

Theo.

And yet the suffering, which hee specified by the breaking of his body, and shedding of his blood was not present, but the next day on the crosse. If you teach that Christs blood was really shed at the ta∣ble for rem••ssion of sinnes, you must put him twise to death, & make the later death which was on the crosse to be vtterly idle. For a 1.849 where remission (of sin) is, there needeth no more sacrifice for sin. If thē remissiō of sins were obtained by the actual shedding of Christs blood at his last supper, his death & crosse the next day were superfluous. If forgiuenes were not obtained ouer night, but that the Lord the next day was to shed his blood for our sinnes, then spake he before hand of that which the next day should follow: & his speech in the present tense noteth nothing but that hee had euen then giuen him-selfe ouer to death for our sakes, which imm••d••atly they should beheld.

No act of Christes therefore at his last supper importeth any reall sacrifice that he then made,* 1.850 but he did institute a Sacrament of thankesgiuing, and co••∣maunded vs by eating and drinking to bee partakers of his bodie that was wounded and bloode that was shedde the next daie for the remitting and pardoning of our sinnes. So that you must either retayne eating and drinking at the Lordes table, or else renounce both the bene••it of his passion, and memoriall of his death, with an open neglect of his last Will and Te∣stament.

Phi.

Wee do retaine it, and as you know, by our canons we bind all priests that consecrate to * 1.851communicate in both kindes.

Theo.

Let the decrees of men alone, do you bind them to it by the words of Christ?

Phi.

We do, though the pu∣nishment bee expressed in the canons, and not in the Scriptures.

Theo.

It in punishment enough to bee guiltie of the body and bloode of Christ, a grea∣ter you can not impose, make your canons as seuere as you will.

Phil.

Yet you see we binde them to communicate.

Theophil.

You should breake

Christes institution, if you shoulde doe otherwise.

Philand.

And therefore wee doe that which I tell you.

Theophil.

Then eating and drinking are necessary partes of Christes institution.

Philand.

Of his action they are partes, but not of the Sacrament.

Theophil.

Neither doe I say that they are partes of his bodie & blood, but of his example and ordinance.

Philand.

Wee graunt.

Theo.

And the neglecting of those actions which Christ in his person perfourmed before vs, is a breach of his institution as well as the chan∣ging or omitting of his wordes.* 1.852

Philand.

In the Priest it is.

Theo.

Of the Priest wee speake: for Christ charged him, and not women or lay-men to doe as he did.

Phi.

Then wee agree to your last position, that if the Priest do not obserue Christes actions as well as Christes wordes he transgresseth Christes institution.

Theoph.

Then your Priestes are all guiltie of violating Christes institu∣tion.

Phi.

Doe they not eate and drinke at the Altar, as hee did?

Phi.

That Christ himselfe did eate and drinke at the ministration of the Sacrament,* 1.853 is not expressed in any part of his institution, though some wordes that followe after declare he dranke of the same fruite of the vyne which the rest did, but the whole course of his actions & speeches stood in deliuering the mysteries vnto o∣thers. He tooke bread, that hee might breake it: hee brake it, that hee might giue it: he gaue it, that they should eate: and so his wordes declare which are both plurall and spoken to others, take ye, eate ye, not singular or to himselfe. Though therefore your Priest take and eate for his part,* 1.854 yet since Christ brake the bread that it might bee diuided among others, & bid them take and eate, it is certaine your Priestes neither doe as Christ did, nor as hee commaun∣ded his Apostles to do, nor as the very wordes of Christ, which he repeateth, do specifie. For Christ said, take ye, eate ye, which in their priuate Masses your Priestes doe not, and for that cause euerie such Masse is a manifest contempt of Christes wordes and deedes confessed and rehearsed by your owne mouthes, at the altar, as partes of his institution.

Phi.

The Catholike church onely, by Christes spirit can tell, which thinges are imitable, which not, in al his actions.

The.

When himself hath appointed what ac∣tions of his he will haue to be followed; the church is bound to obey, & not licen∣ced to make her choise: But in this case the church of christ hath faithfully done her duty. For she alwayes obserued these actions of Christ her Lord and master, and verified his wordes, till Antichrist with pride and power came to take vp his seat in the middest of her, and to proportion all religion to his vnsounde and deceiued affection.

Phi.

Is the catholike church in this point with you?

Theo.

Yea and against you mightily. The canons, as you terme them, Apostolicall, prohibit your pri∣uat Masse. a 1.855 Whosoeuer of the faithfull enter the church & heare the scri∣ptures read, if they stay not out praiers & receiue the sacred communion: let them as peruerters of ecclesiasticall order bee put from the communion. Which words the b 1.856 councell of Antioch repeateth and confirmeth as agreeable

to Christian discipline in their dayes.

Reade the church seruice which (as you tell vs) Iames, Basill, and Chryso∣stom co••posed, you shall finde them publike communions not priuate masses; read what Dionysius S. Pauls sch••ler (as you beare men in hand) and Iustinus the martyr report of the ••••••••tration of the Lords S••pper in their daies. a 1.857 This is the generall and catholike description and order of the diuine mysteries, saith Dionysius, that first the minister himself receiueth & then imparteth the same to others. b 1.858Towards the end of our praiers, ••aith Iustinus, we salute one an other with a kisse after that bread and a cup of wine delaied with water are brought to him that hath charge ouer his brethren, which he taketh and giueth thankes to the father of all through the sonne and holy Ghost;* 1.859 his praier and thankes all the people standing by confirme with answering A∣men: then those which are called with vs Deacons giue euery man that is present of the bread and wine tempered with water, and carie the same to such as are absent. This I trowe resembleth our communion not your priuat masse, & this without controuersie was the catholike and Apostelike maner of solemnizing the Lordes Supper in the Primatiue church.

Yea the church of Rome which you woulde seeme so much to reuerence withstood this your profanation of the Lordes supper a long time with marue∣lous zeale. c 1.860Consecration ended, saith Pope Calixtus, let all communicate that will not stand excommunicated: for so the Apostles determined, and the holy Romane church obserueth. The maner of the whole church in Pope Gregories time 600. yeares after Christ was for a Deacon to crie to the people, d 1.861Si quis non communicet, det locum, he that mindeth not to communi∣cate let him auoide. Pope Martine willed him to be e 1.862 cast out of the catho∣like church, which entered the church of God, and with held himselfe from the communion of the Sacrament. Charles the Emperour 800. yeares after Christ gaue commaundement vtf 1.863 omnes fideles communicent, & ad Missas perex∣pectent sine al••a depraedicatione, that all the faithfull should communicate, and looke at masse so to do without other warning. What need we farther proofe in a case so manifest? your owne fellowes confesse no lesse: g 1.864 In the primatiue church, saith Durandus, all that were present at the celebration of the Masse did euery day cōmunicate. Their oblation was a great loafe sufficient for al, which the Grecians are said to continue to this day.* 1.865 So that both the wordes of Christs institution, & the traditiō of the primatiue church directly refute your priuate Masses and proue the communion now vsed in the church of England to be good and catholike.

The h 1.866 Lordes supper, saith Chrysostom, ought to bee common. For such thinges as are the Lords belong not to this or to that seruant, but are commō to all. If then it be the Lords, as in deed it is, thou shouldst not take it as thine owne to thy selfe, but propose it to all in common, as being the Lordes. Thou doest not suffer it to be the Lords, whē thou doest not suffer it to be cō∣mō, but eatest it thy selfe. i 1.867 Paul calleth it the Lords supper, which is receiued

in common, with one consent of all assembled together, for vntill all com∣municate & be partakers of that spiritual food, the mysteries once set foorth are not taken away, but the priests standing still stay for all, yea for the poo∣rest of all. So Theodoret: The k 1.868 Lords table is equally proposed vnto al mē: of that supper all are partakers alike. And Haymo: l 1.869 The Sacrament of christs body is called a supper by reason of the communion, because it ought to be common to all the faithfull and iust.

If this doctrine be true, as there can be no question of it, then are your priuat Masses far from Christs institution, & as far from the catholike order of Christs church, which suffered no man to bee present at the time of the diuine mysteries but such as would & did participate, sending the rest away that could not be par∣takers of▪ the Lords table.* 1.870 And this the very name of your Masse as I haue pro∣ued, doth shew, signifieng the demising of all such as might not communicate; which if you should do in your priuat Masses you should leaue an empty church, yea the priests must take paines to serue & answere himselfe, since no man be∣sides the priest hath any part of that banquet, which Christ prouided for all: and bequeathed vnto all to bee the monument of his passion, and pleadge of their saluation.

With like rashnes you take from the people when you do admit them once a yeare to their rightes (as you call it) the cup which should be to them,* 1.871 the com∣munion of the Lordes blood, Drinke ye all of this, sayth our Sauiour, and di∣uide it mongst you. These words you repeate for a shew, but you falsifie them in sense. For you suffer no lay-man to tast of the Lords cup, as if one part of this mystery were sufficient, the rest superfluous; or you might dispence with christs institution at your pleasure.

Phi.

Christ spake that to such as were Priests & not vnto the lay people.

The.

Doth your conscience serue you Philander to play the wanton in so great and deepe mysteries of christian religion? To whom then were these words spoken, take ye, eate ye? not to the selfesame parties to whom it was said Drinke ye?* 1.872 If none may drinke but priests, because the disciples which dranke were Priests: then by the same logike none should eate but priests, because neither time, place, nor persons were chaunged betweene these two precepts eate ye, drinke ye, but in al respects the cup was deliuered at the same time, to the same persons, when the bread was. So that you must either exclude the people from both, which I trust you dare not, or admit them to both which is the very point that we presse you with.

Heare what a man of your side thinketh as well of this consequent, as of your halfe communion.* 1.873 There be some false catholikes that feare not to stop the reformation of the church what they can. These spare no blasphe∣mies, least that other part of the Sacrament shoulde bee restoared to the lay people. For say they, Christ spake drinke ye all of this, onely to the A∣postles: but the words of the Masse be these, take and eate ye al of this. Here I would know of them whether this were spoken only to the Apostles: then

must laymen abstaine likewise from the element of bread,* 1.874 which to say, is an heresie, yea a pestilent and detestable blasphemie. It is therefore consequēt that both these words (eate ye, drinke ye) were spoken to the whole Church. I will not take this aduantage, that your owne fellow doth proclaime you for false Catholikes, heretikes and horrible blasphemers, God giue you grace to see whither you be fallen and whence: This for your liues you cannot shifte, but these two precepts eate ye, drinke ye, by the tenor of Christs institution must be referred to the same persons, and so both or neither pertaine to the people.

Surely the wordes which our Sauiour vsed in deliuering the cup, are more generall and effectiue than when he gaue the bread,m 1.875 Drinke ye all of this, and n 1.876 they all dranke of it: o 1.877 take it, diuide it among you. This cup is the newe Testament in my blood which shall be shed for * 1.878 you. Now the Lord shed not his blood for the Priest onely, but also for the people, neither was the new Testament established in the blood of Christ for the Priestes sake but as well for the redemption of the people. Then as the fruites and effects of the blood of Christ are common to the people with the Priest, so should the cup also which is the communion of his blood shed for the remission of the peoples sins, be diui∣ded indifferently betweene the Preist and people. p 1.879 There is, saieth Chryso∣stome, where the Priest differeth nothing from the people, as when wee must receiue the dreadfull mysteries. For it is not here, as it was in the olde Lawe, where the Priest eate one part and the pleople an other, nei∣ther was it lawfull for the people to be partaker of those thinges which the Priest was,* 1.880 but now it is not so, but rather one bodie is proposed to all, and one cup.

Phil.

The church then might like that the people shoulde haue the cup, as the church after did mislike it for many and weightie causes, but how proue you that Christes precept extendeth vnto the people?

Theo.

Wee can haue no bet∣ter interpreter of Christes speech than his Apostle, that was best acquainted with the true meaning of our Sauiour. q 1.881Wee haue, sayth he, the minde of Christ: and r 1.882that which I deliuered you, I receiued of the Lorde. So that hee did not correct, but onely report the Lordes ordinaunce, and in de∣liuering both kindes to the whole church of Corinth, priest and people without exceptiō the teacher of the gentiles did neither swarue frō the first institutiō, nor right intentiō of Christ his master.s 1.883 The cup of thāksgiuing which we blesse, is it not the communion of Christes blood? The bread which we breake, is it not the communion of Christs body? Ye can not drink the cup of the Lord & the cup of diuels. Ye can not be partakers of the Lordes table and of the table of diuels. Can you frame vs a reason out of these wordes of Sainct Paul, to dissuade the Corinthians from eating and drinking such things as the Gen∣tile there sacrificed to Idols, & not confesse that they dranke of the Lords cup? It is not possible. For this is Sainct Paules argument: You can not drinke both the Lordes cuppe and the cuppe of diuels: the cuppe of thankes giuing which wee blesse (and you all drinke of) is the communion of the

Lordes blood, therefore you maie not drinke of the cup of diuels.

YOV CANNOT DRINKE BOTH,* 1.884 inferreth they did, and should drinke one, which was the Lordes cup, not the cup of diuels: els Paul should haue said, you maie drinke neither: not the cup of diuels, for they might haue no fellow∣ship with diuels; neither the Lordes cup, for that is reserued for the Priest by your doctrine: but both, saith Paul, you cannot drinke, ergo they must drinke one which was not the cup of diuels. Againe the cup which they dranke not, could to them be no Communion. For nature teacheth vs that to be partaker of a cup, is to drinke: but the Lordes cup was to them the communion of his blood, ergo they dranke of the Lordes cup.

My collection is so cleare, that the vulgar translation, which you are tied to by the Councell of Trent, putteth these verie woordes in the text, Omnes de v∣no pane, & de vno calice participamus, we all are partakers of one bread, AND OF ONE CVP. * 1.885 Ambrose, * 1.886 Hierom, * 1.887 Bede, * 1.888 Haymo, and others found it so consequent to S. Pauls former woords, and coherent with his maine rea∣son, that they sticke not to keepe this addition (& de vno calice) in their verie terts, on which they comment. So that out of question Paul taught the Church of Corinth to distribute the Lordes supper to the Christians in both kindes, and that as he saith, he receiued of the Lorde.

And who•• that hath anie shame or sense left, reading the next Chapter that followeth, where Christes institution is fullie proposed and largelie debated by S. Paul, will or can doubt, but the Lorde at his last Supper ordained both kindes for all the faithfull?* 1.889 As often (saith Paul to the whole Congregation) as ye shall eate this bread and drinke this cup, ye shewe the Lordes death till he come. Whosoeuer shall eate this bread & drinke the cup of the Lord vnworthilie, shall be guiltie of the bodie and blood of the Lorde. Let a man therefore (not speaking of this or that man, but of euerie man) examine himselfe, and so let him eate of this bread, and drinke of this cup. And least you should want a generall affirmatiue to iustifie this our exposition, take these woordes of S. Paul and quiet your selfe.* 1.890 By one spirit are we all Baptized into one bodie, whether we be Iewes or Grecians, bond or free, and WE ALL HAVE DRVNKE into one spirit. Can you looke for directer or plainer woordes? All Iewes and Gentiles, bond and free not onelie dranke, but by drinking were made partakers of one and the same spirite, uen as by baptisme they were grafted into one bodie.

Then if Christ himselfe deliuered both kindes at his last Supper with a strait and generall charge for the cup,* 1.891 drinke yee all of this; and Paul recei∣uing his instructions from Christ his master, proposed the same to the Lay men of Corinth no lesse than to the ministers, excepting none, Iewes nor Gentiles, bond nor free, from this precept, how dare you Philander and your late Con∣uents restraine the people from drinking of it? The (Lordes) cup is the new couenant, which he hath made with all beleeuers: do none beleeue but Priests? For the remission of sinnes; are laie men no sinners? as a memoriall of his

death; maie the people loose that remembrance? It is, saith Paul, THE COM∣MVNION OF HIS BLOOD, and the partaking of his spirite; haue the peo∣ple no right to the blood of Christ, that was shed for them; or will you claime his spirite as peculiar to Priestes, which is common to all the children of God?

Philand.

The Church I warraunt you did ponder and consider these reasons,* 1.892 when shee tooke this order, and finding them vnsufficient, shee de∣creed with vs that the cuppe was not necessarie for the Laie peo∣ple.

Theoph.

What Church I praie you? The primatiue and aunci∣ent Church of Christ, where catholicisme should beginne? Wee can assure you no. They ministred in both kindes to Priest and people, men and wo∣men without exception. DIONYSIVS. a 1.893 The breade that was whole be∣ing broken into manie partes, and ONE CVP DIVIDED AMONG ALL, the Bishoppe in these (twaine) perfiteth the holie Sacrifice. The sacred Communion of one and the same breade AND COM∣MON CVP, bindeth (Christians) to diuine concorde and likenesse of manners, as being nourced vp together. IGNATIVS. b 1.894 There is but one flesh of the Lord Iesu, and one blood that was shed for vs: there is also but one bread, that is broken for all; and ONE CVP THAT IS DIVI∣DED AMONG ALL. ATHANASIVS. (If those be his expositions which you haue set forth in his name) c 1.895 The dreadfull cup was deliuered (by the Lorde) TO ALL MEN ALIKE. CYPRIAN: d 1.896 How doe we prepare (the people) for the cup of martyrdome, if we doe not first admit them in the Church to DRINKE THE LORDES CVP BY RIGHT OF COM∣MVNION? AVGVSTINE: e 1.897 Not onelie no man is forbidden but rather ALL MEN that seeke for life ARE ENCOVRAGED TO DRINKE. And againe speaking to the people f 1.898 simul bibimus, quia simul viuimus, WE DRINKE TOGETHER (at the Lordes table) because we liue together. CHRYSOS∣TOME as before. g 1.899 One bodie is proposed to al and one cup. GREGORIE. h 1.900The blood of Christ is now not powred into the hands of vnbeleeuers, but into the mouthes of the faithfull. THEOPHILACT. i 1.901How happeneth thou drinkest alone, whereas this dreadfull cup was deliuered to all men indifferentlie? HAYMO: k 1.902The cup is called a communion (by Paul) be∣cause all men are partakers of it. PASCHASIVS:l 1.903 Christ gaue the cup, and said, Drinke ye all of this, as well the Ministers, as the rest of the belee∣uers.

Infinite are the places which might be brought to make faith, that for a thousand yeares in the Church of God, the people were not depriued of the Lordes cup. The master of your sentences who liued verie neare twelue hun∣dred after Christ knewe not this maiming and paring of Christes institution which now raigneth in your churches. m 1.904 Therefore is the Sacrament, saith he, celebrated in two kinds, that in Christ the taking of soul and flesh, and in vs the redeeming of them both might be signified. For the flesh of Christ is

offered for our flesh, and his soul for our soules. It is taken vnder both kindes which profiteth both partes. If it shoulde be receiued in one kinde onely, that would declare, that it auayled for the safegard of one part onely, soule or body, not for both ioyntly.* 1.905 The gloze that followed an hun∣dred yeeres after, resteth him-selfe on the same reason with the same wordes, and shrinketh not from the communion in both kinds, but in the danger of sick∣nes, or point of necessitie. Insirmus vel sanus in necessitate potest sumere cor∣pus sine vino: a sicke man (whome the drinking of wyne might hurt) or an whole man in case of necessitie (where hee can not choose) may receiue the body without the wyne. Then in the Church where prouision might soone bee made for all, and no necessitie coulde bee pretended, it was not as yet counted lawefull for the people to receiue the Sacrament in one kinde.

Philand.

But if the Church after vppon good deliberation,* 1.906 sawe suffi∣cient cause to chaunge that order, who made you controllers of Christes spouse?

Theoph.

That vnshamefast harlot, which foureteene hundred yeeres after Christes ascention woulde both alter her husbandes will, and de∣fraude his children of that portion, which their Lorde and Sauiour had allotted them, did prostitute her selfe and bastardize her ofspring as much as lay in her, and is no way woorthie to haue the honour of a mother, or name of a spouse, though shee paint her selfe neuer so freshly with youthfull colours: And the reasons which mooued her so to doe,* 1.907 were as ridiculous, as the fact was impious. Durandus sayth, Non esset decens, tantum sanguinem conficere, nec calix capax inueniretur: It woulde not bee decent to consecrate so much blood (as must serue the people) neither can there so bigge a chalice bee gotten. Gerson beateth his braines to iustifie that, which the councell of Constance did, in taking the Lordes cup wholy from the people not yet nyne score yeeres agoe: and when hee hath all doone hee commeth in with these toyes:* 1.908 THE length of Laymens beardes, the loth∣somnes to drinke after others, the costlynes of so much wyne, the diffi∣culties first of getting, then of keeping wyne from sowring, freezing and breeding of flies, the burden in bearing and daunger in spilling it, last of all, the peoples vnwoorthynes to match (Messere magnifico) the Priest in the receite of this Sacrament. Bee not these valiant inducements for you to chaunge the last Will and Testament of Christ Iesus, and abrogate that which was orderly kept in the church for a thousande yeeres and vpward? And yet these were the grauest and profoundest considerations that your friendes had to leade them to this attempt: and these you knowe bee verie miserable.

Gerson I graunt shifteth what hee can to bring other proofes, that both kindes are not simply needfull, but why the councell of Constance tooke the cup cleane from the people, (which violence before was neuer offered them,) of this I say, Gerson a chiefe agent in that councell labouring purposely to

shewe the reason of their doings, neither doeth, nor could, yeelde any better or weightier occasions than these which I nowe repeated, and the reader shall find blazed with great confidence in the second part of the foresaid treatise.

O deintie fathers and sleeke diuines which for long beardes, and vnsweete breathes, for a litle paynes, and no great charges, for frostes in winter, and flies in sommer thought best to correct Christes institution, and not onely to forsake the full consent of all ages and Churches in expounding the same, but also to chase the people by terror of secular power and ecclesiasticall curse from the cup of their saluation, from the communion of Christs blood, * 1.909and felowship of his holy spirit. Such fathers, such fansies. What is mockerie, what is iniurie to God and man, if this be Religion or pietie?

The Church of Rome, you will say concluded with them. That increaseth her sinnes, and excuseth not their follies. If an Angel from heauen had con∣spired with them, our duetie bindeth vs to detest both him and them as accur∣sed,* 1.910 if they step from that which the primatiue church receiued from Paul, and Paul from Christ: Howe much more then ought wee to reiect that which the church of Rome presumeth not onely besides, but against the sacred scriptures? And yet to speake vprightly the auncient church of Rome maketh wholy with vs in this cause. For no church euer resisted your mangled communions with greater vehemencie than the church of Rome did, till couetousnesse and pride blinded her eyes, and hardned her heart against God and his sonne.

* 1.911Pope Iulius, that lyued vnder Constantine the great, made this decree. We heare that certaine led with schismaticall ambition against the diuine ordi∣nances, and Apostolike directions doe giue TO THE PEOPLE the Eucha∣rist dipped in wyne for a full communion. They receiued not this from the Gospell, where Christ betooke his body and blood to the Disciples. For there is recited the deliuering the bread by it selfe, and the cup by it selfe.* 1.912 Let therefore all such error and presumption cease least inordinate and per∣uerse diuises weaken the soundnes of fayth. If the communion bee neither perfite, nor agreeable to Christes institution, and Apostolike prescription, ex∣cept the people receiue both kinds seuerall, and asunder, the bread from the cup, and the cup from the bread, as Christ ordayned, and the Gospel declareth: Ergo your excluding the people cleane from the cup is altogether repugnant to the manifest intent of our Sauiour, and right imitation of his Apostles.

And what if the first authors of your drie communion were the Manichees, are you not wise men, and well promoted to forsake the precept which Christ gaue you, the president which Paul left you, the course which the christian world for so many yeeres obserued, and followe so pestilent and pernicious a sect of heretikes, reprooued and long since condemned by the church of Rome, for that very fraude and abuse in the Sacraments, which you bee nowe fallen vnto? The Manichees,* 1.913 sayth Leo, to couer their infidelitie, venter to bee present at our mysteries, and so carie them-selues in the receiuing of the Sacraments, for their more safetie, that they take the body of Christ with an vnwoorthy

mouth, but in any wise they shunne to drinke the blood of our redemption.* 1.914 Which I would haue your d••uoutnes (speaking to the people) learne for this cause, that such men might bee knowen to you by these markes, and when their * 1.915 sacrilegious simulation is founde, they may bee noted and bewray∣ed by the Godly, that they may bee chased away by the priestly power.

Against this disorder of Manichees wrate Pope Gelas••••, as your friende Master Harding confesseth. Wee haue intelligence that certaine men recei∣uing onely a portion of the sanctified body abstaine from the cup of the sa∣cred blood: who for that it appeareth, they be entangled with I knowe not what superstition let them either receiue the whole Sacraments, or be dri∣uen from the whole: because the diuiding and parting of one and the same mysterie can not bee without grieuous sacrilege. The sense is plaine. To take the Lordes breade, and not drinke of the Lordes cup, is a seuering and di∣stracting of this mysterie, which by the iudgement of these two Popes is open sacrilege: ergo neither Catholike or christian.

What shift n••we Philander, to saue your selues from sacrilege?* 1.916 Spake Gelasius of the Manichees as Master Harding resolueth? Graunt it were so. Then what was sacrilege in them, can it bee catholike in you? If that auncient church of Rome condenmed this in the Manichees, howe commeth your late Church of Rome not onely to suffer, but also to commaund the same? Can you turne dark••nes to light, and sacrilege to Religion?* 1.917 That were a marueilous alteration. But Si••s your minds may change wee knowe: Christes institution can not chang••; The contempt thereof, in Manichees, in Papistes: as then, so still, was and will be sacrilege.

Spake Gelasius not of the Manichees but of certaine Priestes that recei∣uing the bread at the Lordes table neglected the cup? Yet Leo speaketh of the Manichees by name, and ••hose Laymen,* 1.918 and mingled with the people, and cal∣leth their forbearing the Lords blood a sacrilegious sleight: & reason were you should prooue that onely Pries••es are ment in this place of Gelasius, and not suppose what you list at your pleasures, as the gloze doeth and others of your side, that stand on this answere. The woordes are indefinite, and touch as well people as Priest: but let vs imagine that Gelasius spake of Priestes, first then you commit sacrilege in restraining all Priestes from the communion of both kinds, except they say Masse thems••lues. Next if it bee sacrilege in the Priest, why not in the people? The precept of our Sauiour, drinke ye all of this, com∣priseth all, both Laymen and Priestes. His Apostle * 1.919 extendeth the same to the whole Church of Corinth. Chrysostome sayth a 1.920 the Priest differeth nothing from the people in receiuing the mysteries, but one cup is proposed to al: b 1.921 In Chalice nobiscum vos estis: You (sayth Austen to the people) are in the (Lordes) cup no lesse than we.c 1.922 The cup was deliuered to all men (Priest and people) with like condition, as Theophilact affi••meth.d 1.923 Drinke yee all of this, that is, sayth Paschasius, as well other beleuers as Ministers. Hence wee frame you this argument. The cup was by Christ deliuered to Priest and People with

like condition, and like precept:* 1.924 the refusing of the Lordes cup is sacrilege in priests by the position of Gelasius and the confession of your friends: it is there∣fore no lesse than sacrilege for the people to refraine the same. What then is it, for you to pull the Lordes cuppe out of their handes, by rigor and force, for so trifling respectes as you pretende, but apparent, violent, and wilfull sacrilege?

Phi.

* 1.925It was sacrilege then for the people to refuse or refraine the cup, be∣cause the church was content to admitte them to it: But now the church is o∣therwise resolued, it were sacrilege to expect, or demand it.

Theo.

What shall the man of sinne and sonne of perdition when he commeth, (if hee bee not alrea∣dy come, and you his supporters to hold vp his seate in the temple of God) say more than you now say; that you at your lists may breake the commandements of the great and euerlasting God, and alter his ordinances; and to blame you for it, or recall you backe from your enterprise, is sacrilege?* 1.926 Woe bee to you that call good euill, and euill good, which set darkenesse for light, and light for darkenesse, and put bitter for sweete, and sweete for bitter. Woe bee to you that are (so) wise in your owne eyes, and (so) prudent in your owne conceites, that you preferre your owne Counsell before the wisedome of God.

Philand.

Nay you preferre your wittes before the whole Church of GOD: you woulde not other-wise take vppon you to controle your forefa∣thers and teachers in such sort as you doe.

Theoph.

If they forsooke their fathers, yea GOD him-selfe,* 1.927 why shoulde wee not renounce them rather as parricides than resemblance of their auncestours?

Philand.

They were Catholikes, and so are wee.

Theoph.

You leaue the steppes both of Christ and his Church, and yet you must and will bee catholikes.

Philand.

Wee followe them better, than you doe.

Theoph.

So it appeareth by your halfe communion, which they condemned for sacrilege, and you embrace for Religion.

Phi.

Here is such a stirre about eating and drinking, as though all consi∣sted therein,* 1.928 and in the meane while you neglect and abolish the holy and vn∣bloody sacrifice, which is farre more Catholike, than your communion.

Theo.

You neede not make so light of eating and drinking at the Lordes table. There depende greater promises and dueties on that, than on your vnbloody sacrifi∣cing the sonne of God. As often as yee shall eate this breade and drinke this cup, yee shewe the Lordes death till hee come. Without eating and drin∣king therefore the Lordes death is not shewed. The bread which we breake, (to be eaten) is it not the communion of Christes body? The cup of blessing which wee blesse (that all may drinke of it) is it not the communion of Christes blood? If wee refuse eating the one, or drinking the other, can we be partakers of Christ or his spirit? Hee that eateth my flesh, sayth our sauiour, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in mee and I in him: and except you eate the flesh of the sonne of man, and drinke his blood, yee haue no life in you.

These bee the fruites, and effectes of religions and worthie eating and drin∣king at the Lordes table: shewe vs the like for your sacrificing, and wee will thinke you had some occasion though no reason to turne the Lords Supper in∣to an offering.

Philand.

This one Sacrifice hath succeeded all other,* 1.929 and fulfilled all other diffe∣rences of Sacrifices, and hath the force and vertue of all other, to be offered for all per∣sons and causes that the others, for the lyuing and the dead, for sinnes and for thankes∣giuing, and for what other necessitie soeuer of body or soule. Bee not these as great and good effectes of our Sacrifice, as those which you nowe rehearsed for ea∣ting and drinking at the Altar?* 1.930

Theo.

They bee great, if you had as good authoritie for the one as wee haue for the other.

Philand.

Wee haue better.

Theo.

Wee must giue you leaue to say so, but you shall giue vs leaue not to beleeue you.

Phi.

All the fathers with one consent stand on our side for the Sacrifice.

Theoph.

Were it so, that yet is many degrees beneath the cre∣dite of our conclusion. You bring vs the speaches of men, wee bring you the woorde of God: I trust you will aguise some difference betwixt them.

Phi.

As though wee coulde not bring you Scriptures as well as fathers for the sa∣crifice of the Masse.

Melchisedec by his oblation in bread and wyne did properly and most singularly prefigurate this office of Christes eternall Priesthoode,* 1.931 and sacrificing himselfe vn∣der the formes of bread•• and wyne: which shall contynue in the Church through∣out all Christian Nations in steede of all the offeringes of Aarons Priesthood,* 1.932 as the Prophet Malachie did foretell, as Saint Cyprian, Saint Iustine, Saint Iri∣neus, and others the most auncient Doctors and Martyrs doe testifie. Cyprian epistola 63. num. 2. Iustin. dial. cum Trypho. post med. Iren. libro 4. capit. 32. And Saint Augustine libro 17. cap. 20. de ciuitat. Dei. & libro primo contra aduers. leg. & prophet. ca. 18. & lib. 3. de baptism. ca. 19. S. Leo sermone 8. de passione: auouch that this one sacrifice hath succeeded all other, and fulfilled all other differences of Sa∣crifices, &c.

Yea in S. Pauls epistle to the Church at Corinth the first and tenth chap∣ter:* 1.933 We maie obserue that our bread and chalice, our table and altar, the participa∣tion of our host and oblation, be compared or resembled point by point, in all effectes, conditions, and properties, to the altars, hostes, sacrifices, and immolatious of the Iewes and Gentiles. Which the Apostle woulde not, or coulde not haue done in this Sacrament of the altar, rather than in other Sacraments or seruice of our Re∣ligion, if it onelie had not beene a Sacrifice and the proper worship of God among the Christians, as the other were among the Iewes and heathen. And so doe all the fa∣thers acknowledge, calling it onelie, and continuallie almost, by such termes as they doe no other Sacrament or ceremonie of Christes Religion: The Lamb of God laide vpon the table: Concil. Nicen. The vnbloodie seruice of the Sacrifice, In Con∣cil. Ephesin. epist. ad Nestor. pag. 605. The sacrifice of sacrifices: Dionys. Eccles. Hieronym. cap. 3. The quickning holie sacrifice: the vnbloodie host and victime: Cyril. Alex. in Concil. Ephes. Anat••. the propitiatorie sacrifice both for the liuing

and the dead. Tertul. de cor. Milit. Chrys. ho. 41. in 1. Corinth. ho. 3. ad Phil. Ho. 66. ad pop. Antioch. Cypr. epi. 66. & decaena. Do. nu. 1. August. Euch. 109. Quaest. 2. ad Dul∣cit. to. 4. Ser. 34. de verb. Apost. The sacrifice of our mediator: the sacrifice of our price: the sacrifice of the newe Testament: the sacrifice of the Church. August. li. 9. ca. 13. & li. 3. de baptist. ca. 19. The one only inconsumptible victime, without which there is no Religion. Cyprian. de caen. Do. nu. 2. Chrysost. ho. 17. ad Hebr. The pure oblation, the newe ofspring of the newe Law: the vital and impolluted host: the hono••r••ble & dread∣ful Sacrifice:* 1.934 the Sacrifice of thankesgiuing or Eucharistical: & the Sacrifice of Mel∣chisedec. This is the Apostles and fathers doctrine. God grant you may find mercy to see so euident and inuincible a trueth.

Theo.

You be nowe where you would be; and where the fathers seeme to fit your foote: But if your sacrifice bee conuinced to bee nothing lesse than catho∣like, or consequent to the Prophets, Apostles or Fathers Doctrine, what say you then to your vanitie in alleaging, if not impietie in abusing so many Fa∣thers and Scriptures to proppe vp your follies?

Phi.

Bee not these places which we bring you for this matter, vndeniable, vnauoydable, indefeatable, vn∣answerable?

Theo.

In any case lay on loade of termes: You haue made vs so many in your late Rhemish testamēt, that now you must not seeme to lack. But what if all these places neede neither denying, auoyding, defeating nor answe∣ring? What if not one of these fathers, whose works you cite as thick as hops, euer spake or heard of your external and real sacrificing the sonne of God afresh for the sinnes of the worlde, but they vsing the wordes Sacrifice and oblation to an other purpose, you force a priuate and peculiar sense of yours vpon their speaches against their meanings?

Phi.

This is euer your wont, when the woordes bee so plaine that you can not deny them, to flie to the meaning.

Theo.

In deede this hath beene not the least of Satans sleights in conueying your Religion from steppe to step & point by point, to keepe the speach,* 1.935 and chaunge the sense of the learned and auncient fathers, that what with the phrases which were theirs, and the forgeries which were not theirs, and yet caried their names, hee might make the way for Anti∣christ to set vp his visible Monarchie of error and hypocrisie.

Phi.

This is the way to rid your selues of all obiections.

Theoph.

And the other is the way to drowne your selues in the deapth of all corruption: but so long as wee holde their fayth and doctrine, which were the lights and lampes of Christes church, we can spare you their phrases here and there skattered in their writings, & you no whit the neerer the trueth of their beliefe.

Phi.

You hold not their fayth in this or any other point of your Religion.

Theo.

The greatest boasters bee not alwaies the greatest conquerours: Let it therefore first appeare what they teache touching the Sacrifice of the Lords table,* 1.936 and what wee admit: and then it will soone bee seene which of vs twaine hath departed from them.

The fathers with one consent call not your priuate Masse, that they neuer knew, but the Lordes Supper a Sacrifice, which wee both willingly graunt

and openly teach: so their text, not your gloze may preuayle. For there besides the sacrifice of praier and thankesgiuing, which we must then offer to God for our redemption & other his graces bestowed on vs in Christ his sonne: besides the dedication of our soules and bodies to be a reasonable, quicke, and holy sa∣crifice to serue and please him: besides the * 1.937 contribution and almes then giuen in the primatiue Church for the reliefe of the poore and other good vses: a Sa∣crifice no doubt very acceptable to God: I say besides these three sundry sortes of offerings incident to the Lordes table, the very Supper itselfe is * 1.938 a publike memorial of that great & dreadful sacrifice, I meane, of the death & bloodshed∣ding of our sauiour, and a most assured application of the merites of his passion, for the remission of our sinnes, not to the gazers on, or standers by, but to those that with faith and repentance come to the due receiuing of those mysteries.

The visible sacrifice of bread and wyne representing the Lords death S. Au∣sten enforceth in these words: * 1.939Hold most firmly, neither doubt of this in any case, that the only begotten sonne of God taking our flesh offered himselfe a sweet smelling sacrifice to god, to whom with the father & the holy ghost, the Patriarks, Prophets, & Priests vnder the old law sacrificed brute beasts, & to whō now, in the time of the new Testament, with the (same) father & holy spirite, the holy Catholike Church throughout the world doth not cease to of••er the sacrifice of breade and wine in faith & charitie. In those carnal Sa∣crifices there was a figuration of the flesh of Christ, which he should offer, & bloud which he should shed for the remissiō of our sins: In this sacrifice there is a * 1.940 thankesgiuing & remembrance of the flesh which he hath offered and bloud which the same god hath shed for vs. With him agreeth Ireneus: Christ b 1.941willing his Disciples to offer vnto God the first fruites of his creatures (not that god needed them, but lest they should be found vnfruiteful or vnthank∣ful) toke the creature of bread and gaue thanks saying this is my body. And likewise he confessed the cup which is a creature amongst vs to be his bloud teaching the new oblation of the new Testament, which the Church recei∣uing from the Apostles offereth to God throughout the world. c 1.942 We must thē offer to god, & in al things yeeld thanks to god the maker with a pure mind, vnfaigned faith, stedfast hope, and feruent loue, offering the first fruits of his Creatures: and this oblation the Church only sacrificeth in purity to the cre∣ator, offering to God of his creatures with thanksgiuing. And this we offer to him not as if he stoode in neede (of these presents) but rendring him thanks for these his gifts, and sanctifieng the creature.

This oblation of bread & wyne for a thankesgiuing to God, & a memoriall of his sonnes death was so confessed & vndoubted a trueth in the church of Christ, till your Schoolemen beganne to wrest both Scriptures and Fathers to serue their quiddities, that not onely the Liturgies vnder the names of Clemens, Ba∣sil, and Chrysostome do mention it: (d 1.943We offer to thee our king and God this bread & this cup according to thy sonnes institutiō: e 1.944 tua ex tuis offerimus tibi domine, we offer thee O Lord these thy gifts of thine own (creatures.) Which

sense Irineus f 1.945 vrgeth against valentine,) but also the very Missals vsed in your own Churches at this day do confirme the same. These be the woordes of your own Offertorie: g 1.946 Receiue holy Father, God euerlasting, this vndefiled host, which I thine vnworthy seruant offer to thee my king and true God, for my sinnes, negligences, and offences innumerable, for al standers by, yea for all faithful christians as wel liuing as departed this life, that it may helpe me & thē to attaine eternal life. h 1.947 We offer to thee O Lord this cup of saluation, in∣treating thy goodnes that it may be taken vp into thy sight, as a sweet smell for the sauing of vs & the whole world. i 1.948 Receiue blessed Trinitie this oblatiō which we offer to thee in remēbrance of the passion, resurrection, & ascēti∣on of Christ Iesus our Lord. k 1.949 We humbly beseech thee most merciful father through Iesus Christ thy son our Lord that thou accept & blesse these gifts, these presēts, these holy vndefiled sacrifices, which we offer to thee first for thy Church, holy and catholike &c. For al true belieuers &c. For al here pre∣sent &c. For the redemption of their soules, and hope of saluation.

* 1.950Certainely you speake these words long before you repeate Christs instituti∣on, your Masse-booke doth apparently prooue that which I report, if I mistake the secretes of your masse, let the shame bee mine. What then offer you in this place? Christ, or the creatures of bread & wine? By your own doctrine Christ is not present, neither any change made til these wordes, This is my body, this is my blood, be pronounced, ergo before consecration the creatures of bread & wyne keepe their proper & earthly substance, when notwithstanding your selues offer thē to God in your masses for the remissiō of your sins, redēption of your soules, & to profit the quick & the dead by that oblation. You teach the people that no∣thing is offred by the priest to god the father for remission of sins, but Christ his son: Your masse, where this should be done, conuinceth y^t you sacrifice not Christ, but the creatures of bread & wine. Be you not more thā blind which see not that the praiers which you daily frequent refute y^e sacrifice which you falsly pretend?

Phi.

As though the ancient fathers did not also say that Christ himself is daily offred in the church.

Theo.

Not in the substance which is your error, but in sig∣nification, which is their doctrine & ours. Take their interpretation with their words & they make nothing for your local & external offring of christ. l 1.951 Was not Christ, saith Austen, once sacrificed in himselfe? and yet in a sacrament is he offered for the benefite of the people, not euery Paschal feast only but euery day. Neither doth he lie, that whē the questiō is asked him, answereth, Christ is offred (daily.) For if Sacraments had not a certain similitude of the things, wherof they be sacraments, they should be no Sacraments at al. And by rea∣son of this similitude they vsually take the names of the things them-selues. Christ is offred daily: this is true, saith Austen, but how? The communion is a sacrament of the Lords death; & sacraments haue the names of the things them selues from a certaine resemblance that is betwene them. This doctrine diffe∣reth much from yours, and yet must Austen stand for a christian and Catholike father, when you by your patience shall goe for vpstarts.

Phi.

S. Augustine spake this not of the liuely flesh & blood of Christ which we sacrifice to god the father by the priests hands for the sins & necessities of mē:* 1.952 but of his death & passiō represented at our masse by the holy mysteries.

The.

In deed S. Augustin spake of y^t he knew: as for your cōceit of sacrificing the liuely flesh & blood of Christ in substance vnder the formes of bread & wine by y^e priests hands; neither he, nor any good author was euer acquainted with it. And to say the truth the very spring & roote of your error is this y^t you seek for a sacrifice in the Lords supper, besides the Lords death. Marke wel the words of Cyprian. a 1.953The passion of the Lord is the sacrifice which we offer: Of Ambrose, b 1.954 Our high priest is he that offred (on y^e crosse) a sacrifice to clense vs: the very same we offer now; which being then offred cannot be consumed; this Sacrifice is a sāplar of that, we offer that very sacrifice for euer: Of Eusebius, c 1.955 Christ after al things (ended) offred a wōderful oblation & most excellent sacrifice (on the crosse) for the saluation of vs al, & gaue vs a memorie therof in stead of a sacri∣fice: we therfore offer the remēbrance of that great sacrifice in the mysteries which he deliuered vs. Of Chrysost. d 1.956 Bringing these mysteries we stop the mouthes of those that aske, how we proue that Christ was sacrificed (on the crosse.) For if Iesus were not slaine, whose signe and token is this sacrifice? Of Austen, e 1.957We sacrifice to God in that only manner, in which he commanded we should offer to him at the reuealing of the new Testament: the flesh and blood of this sacrifice was yeelded in verie trueth when Christ was put to death: after his ascention it is now solemnized by a Sacramēt of memorie.

The verie elements and actions of the Lordes Supper conuince no lesse.* 1.958 The bread which we breake, what else doth it represent, but the Lordes bodie that was broken for vs? The cup, which we drinke, what els doth it resemble saue the Lordes blood that was shed for our sakes? f 1.959 When the host is broken, and the blood poured out of the cup into the mouthes of the faithfull, what other thing, saith Prosper, is thereby designed, than the offering of the Lordes bodie on the crosse, and the shedding of his blood from his side? g 1.960As often as you shall eate this bread and drinke of this cup, you shewe forth the Lordes death till he come: saith Paul. There can be no question of this, the spirit of god hath spoken it. Then if the death of Christ be the sacrifice which the church offreth, it is euident that christ is not only sacrificed at this ta∣ble: but also crucified: & crucified in y^t selfe same sort & sense that he is sacrificed: but no man is so mad as to defēd that christ is really put to death in these myste∣ries: ergo neither is he really sacrificed vnder the formes of bread & wine: which thing your selues haue lately ventered & rashly presumed without al antiquity.

The catholik fathers I can assure you say, christ is offered, & christ is crucified in the Lords supper indifferently. So Ierom, h 1.961Christ is euery day crucified to vs. So Chrysostom,i 1.962 The death of christ is here performed. So Gregory, k 1.963 Christ dieth againe in this mysterie, & his flesh suffreth for the saluation of the peo∣ple: so to conclude, Austen, l 1.964 The gētiles now through the whole world tast & lick the passion of Christ in the sacraments of his body & blood. If you can

expound this you shall not neede to stagger at the rest. The church hath no Sa∣crifice propiciatorie besides the death of her Sauiour, and therefore as she doth kill him, so she doth offer him in her mysteries. If you can not, learne by the di∣rection of your own decrees, what doctrin was taught in the primatiue church, and euen in your own church for 1300. yeres touching this matter. m 1.965 The offe∣ring of the (Lords) flesh, by the Priests hands is called the passion, death, and crucifying of Christ, Non rei veritate, sed significante mysterio, Not in precise truth, but in a mystical signification, or it your gloze delight you rather, n 1.966 In this mysterie Christ dieth, that is his death is represented; his flesh suffereth, that is his passion is represented.

In this very sense Christ is offred daily. Chrysostom, o 1.967 Do we not offer euery day? we do: but a memorial of his death. We do not offer an other sacrifice, but euer the same or rather we continue the remembrance of that sacrifice. Ambrose, p 1.968 Because we were deliuered by the Lords death, we bearing that in mynd do signifie with eating and drinking the flesh and blood that were offred for vs: It is a memorial of our redemption. Eusebius, q 1.969 Christ offered a wonderful sacrifice for the saluatiō of vs al, & we haue receiued a memorial of that most sacred oblation to be performed at the Lordes table according to the rule of the new testament. Augustin, r 1.970 Christ is our high priest after the order of Melchisedec, which yeelded himself a slain sacrifice for our sinnes, and gaue vs a similitude & image of that oblation to be celebrated for a re∣mēbrance of his passiō, in so much that we may see that, which Melchisedec offred to God, now sacrificed in the church of Christ throughout the world.

Emissenus, s 1.971Considering that Christ was to take his body from our eyes & place the same in the heauens, it was requisite he should institute the sa∣crament of his body and blood for vs at his last supper, that it might alwaies be continued in a mysterie, which was once offred for a ransom, & because the work of our redemption did neuer faile, the sacrifice of our redemption might be perpetual, and that euerlasting oblation (of Christ on the crosse) might remaine fresh in memorie and present for euer in grace.

* 1.972Theodorete, If Christ (by his owne sacrifice on the crosse) brought to passe, that other sacrifices should be superfluous, why doe the Priests of the new Testament execute the mysticall Lyturgie or Sacrifice? It is cleare to them that are instructed in our mysteries, that we doe not offer an other sacrifice, but continue the memorie of that one and healthful Sacrifice. For so the Lord himself commanded vs, doe this in my remembrance, that in behold∣ing the figures, we should remember the paines which he suffered for vs, & beare a louing heart towards him that did vs so much fauour, and expect the receiuing of good things to come (which he promised.)

* 1.973Theophilact, Do we then offer vnbloody sacrifices? No doubt wee doe•• mary by being a remembrance of the Lords death. He was once offred, and yet we offer him alwaies, or rather we celebrate the memorial of that obla∣tion, when he sacrificed himselfe (on the crosse.)

Receiue this addition which they make; and wee graunt you that oblation, which they teach. Christ is offered, or rather a memorial of his death and ob∣lation is celebrated.* 1.974 This later correction doeth expound and interprete their former assertion. You can require no plainer, nor sounder doctrine. They piese not Christ with their handes, they shroud him not in accidences, they pray not for him, that God * 1.975 will vouchsafe to respect and accept him as hee did the giftes and (external) sacrifices of Abel, Abraham and Melchisedec, as you do in your Masses: they neuer tolde vs the very fact and intention of the Priest were meritorious; these bee your absurdities and blasphemies: They did of∣fer an a 1.976vnbloody sacrifice not of flesh but of Spirite and mynd, b 1.977 the selfe∣same which Melchisedec did two thousande yeeres before Christ tooke flesh, and therefore not the flesh of Christ: a c 1.978 figuratiue sacrifice, to witte, Signes, Samplars, Similitudes and Memorials of his death and bloodshedding. So that Christ is offered dayly but Mystically, not couered with qualities and quantities of bread and wyne; for those be neither mysteries nor resemblances to the death of Christ:d 1.979 but by the breade which is broken, by the wyne which is drunke, in substance creatures, in signification Sacraments, the Lordes death is figured & proposed to the communicants, and they for their parts, no lesse peo∣ple than Priest, do present Christ hanging on the crosse to God the father, with a liuely faith, inward deuotion, and humble prayer, as a most sufficiēt and euer∣lasting Sacrifice for the full remission of their sinnes and assured fruition of his mercies. Other actual and propitiatorie sacrifice than this the church of Christ neuer had, neuer taught.

You beleeue not mee. Well, what if your owne fellowes and friends teach the same? What if the master of your Sentences, what if the Glozer of your de∣crees, what if the Ringleader of your Schoolemen make with vs in this questi∣on, and euince, that for twelue hundred yeres after Christ your Sacrifice was not knowen to the woorlde:* 1.980 will you giue the people leaue to bethinke them∣selues better, before they call you or account you catholikes? Then heare what they say: Peter Lombard in his 4. booke and 12. distinction. I demaund whe∣ther that which the Priest doeth bee properly called a Sacrifice or an obla∣tion, and whether Christ be daily offered, or els were offered only once.* 1.981 To this our answere is briefe: that which is offred and consecrated by the priest is called a sacrifice and oblatiō, because it is a memorie & representation of the true sacrifice, & holy oblatiō made on the altar of the crosse. Also Christ died once on the crosse, and there was he offred himself, but he is offred dai∣ly in a sacrament, because in the Sacrament there is a remembrance of that which was once done. Now what this meaneth, Christ is offred in a sacramēt, we need no fairer interpretation thā that which your own gloze oftē repeateth: f 1.982Christ is offred in a sacrament, that is, his offring is represented, & a memorie of his passion celebrated. g 1.983 It is the same oblation which he made, * that is, a repre∣sentation of the same passion. h 1.984 Christ is offered euery day mystically, * that is, the oblation which Christ made for vs is represented in the sacrament of his body & blood.

* 1.985With these concurreth Thomas of Aquine. Because the celebration of this Sacrament is a certaine Image of Christs passion, it maie conuenient∣lie be called the sacrificing of Christ. The celebration of this Sacrament is termed the immolating of Christ in two respects: First, for that, as Austen saith, resemblances are woont to be called by the names of those thinges whose resemblances they are; next * 1.986 for that by this sacrament wee be made partakers of the fruite of the Lordes passion. Here find you no reall, locall, nor externall offering of Christ to God his father by the Priest for the sinnes of the people; which is your opinion at this daie; you finde that the cele∣bration of the Lordes supper maie be called an oblation, first, for that it is a representation of Christs death, and sacraments haue the names of the things which they signifie; next, because the merits and fruits of Christs passion are by the power of his spirite diuided and bestowed on the faithfull receiuers of these mysteries.

Nowe boast of your Catholike doctrine, that your pratling Sophists and wandering Friers inuented but yesterday; now call for your souereigne Sa∣crifice not onelie repugnant to the sacred Scriptures and auncient fathers, but reiected by the Mint-master of your sentences, refuted by the conclusions of your Seraphicall Doctor, shunned by your rude Gloze-maker, and cleane thwart to the Canon of your ordinarie Masse. If you speede no better in the rest of your causes, a worse name than fugitiues will become you and your companions well enough, without perill of slaunder or breach of charitie.

These foundations lying sure; to wit, that the creatures of bread and wine are offered to God for a thanksgiuing, when they be sanctified and receiued ac∣cording to his sonnes institution, and that Christ himselfe is daylie offered and crucified in a mysterie, because the breaking of his bodie, and shedding of his blood on the crosse are proposed and renewed by the bread which we eate, and cup which we drinke at the Lordes table; these conclusions I saie standing good we receiue the foure and twentie places which here you huddle, and the fourteene which the Pen-man of your Apologie hath shufled into his sixt chap∣ter, (being for the most part the same that these are, and the rest weaker than these;) and affirme that not one of them teacheth anie other sacrifice than we haue shewed and confessed, and that is no such offering as you auouch and de∣fend at this daie to be in your Masse. For you will haue a reall, externall and corporall kinde of offering the liue fle•••• of Christ by the Priests hands, vnder the formes of bread and wine to God the father for the sinnes of men:* 1.987 and this manual seruice or act of the Priest you auouch to be meritorious and propitia∣torie for those that can purchase the Priests good will to be mindfull of them in his memento.

This is, we saie, a wicked inuention of yours, not the assertion of anie fa∣ther: They celebrated and solemnized the Lordes death by sanctifying the creatures as Christ ordained, and by diuiding them to such as were faithfull and thankeful to God for the redemption of the world in the blood of his sonne:

and this their incitation and prouocation of all men to faith, praier, thanks and obedience was the acceptable seruice and Sacrifice of the new testament. To this we would recall you, by telling you that God careth not for the Priests hands,* 1.988 but for the peoples hearts, and that he requireth not one mans crossing, but the whole Churches calling on him with one heart and one mouth, that he may be honoured, and wee comforted in the death of his sonne. And this was it that Malachie foretolde, and not the Priests holding vp the Chalice, or clen∣ly conueighing the paten, as he must in your Sacrifice.

Phi.

The Prophet Malachie did plainly foretel (our Sacrifice) as S. Cyprian,* 1.989 S. Iustine, S. Ireneus, and other most ancient Doctors and Martyrs doe testifie.

Theo.

Why? What saide the Prophet Malachie?

Phi.

I haue no will to you, saith our Lord of Saboth (to the Iewish Priests) and a gift wil I not receiue of your hands. For from the rising of the sunne to the setting thereof, my name is great among the Gentils, and in euery place A CLEANE OBLA∣TION IS OFFERED AND SACRIFICED TO MY NAME.

Theo.

Ma∣lachie doth not say it shal be offred at the Altar, or by the Priests hands, or vn∣der the formes of bread & wine:* 1.990 but a pure oblation is offered vnto my name.

Phi.

And what oblation can be so pure, as the bodie and bloud of Christ?

Theo.

Neither saith hee, the purest, but a pure oblation is offered,

Phi.

What other oblation hath the new Testament, but only that?

Theo.

Sacrifice for sinne it hath none, but that which the sonne of God made on the crosse: mary yet the new Testament teacheth vs other oblations besides that: though I confesse all our words and works, & euen our selues must bee washed and sanctified in that sacrifice: before we, or any thing that we say or doe can be acceptable vnto God.

Phi.

What oblations doth the new Testament teach vs besides that?

Theo.

You haue not forgotten, I dare say, what Peter saith.* 1.991 And ye as liuely stones be made a spirituall house, and an holy Priesthood, to offer vp spiritual Sa∣crifices acceptable vnto God by Iesus Christ.

Phi.

Why may not S. Peter speake that of the annointed Priests, and their true sacrifices?

Theo.

So he doth, but he meaneth all Christians, and not your shauelings.

Phi.

You would picke a quarell to holy oile: but you bee not yet at rest from the sacrifice. Why may not S. Peter I pray you speake of the blessed Masse?

Theo.

Because hee speaketh to al both men and weomen: and telleth them of a blesseder matter than your masse, that is of the true spiritual sacrifices, in which god taketh more pleasure than in your mumbling of fruitlesse Masses.

Phi.

What are those?

Theo.

S. Paul vttereth two of them almost in one sentence. a 1.992 Let vs therefore by him offer the Sacrifice of praise alwaies to God, that is, the fruite of lippes confessing his name. To doe good and distribute forget not: for with such sacrifices God is pleased; which liberali∣tie els where he calleth b 1.993 a sweete smelling odour, and a sacrifice acceptable and pleasaunt to God. A third kind of Sacrifice is that which he mentio∣neth to the Romanes. c 1.994 I beseech you brethren by the mercies of God, that you giue vp your bodies a liuing SACRIFICE, holy and acceptable vnto

God (which is) your reasonable seruing of God.

Phi.

These were Sa∣crifices of the old Testament as wel as of the new. For Dauid saith, d 1.995 To thee will I sacrifice the offerings of praise, and call vpon the name of our Lord: and of the next, * 1.996 He that sheweth mercie, offereth a Sacrifice: and so of the third, * 1.997 A sacrifice to God is a spirit, afflicting him-selfe with penance.

Theo.

Keepe your penances to stuffe puddings. The sacrifice to God is a troubled (or a broken) spirit. We will not now striue for wordes. These you see be Sacrifices of the olde Testament as well as of the new.

Theo.

And therefore the truer and purer Sacrifices. For the rest were shaddowes, these were none: and so those were abolished, which these were not.

Phi.

But Malachie speaketh of a new Sacrifice that was neuer before.

Theo.

He speaketh of the true Sacrifice, which from the beginning and so to the ende, was and shall be more acceptable to God than the bloody and ex∣ternall sacrifices of the Iewes: Of a new Sacrifice, that neuer was before he speaketh nothing for ought that I can see.

Phi.

The sacrifice which Christ made of himselfe vnder the formes of bread and wine, was a new sacrifice.

Theo.

Uerie new, if anie such were made.

Phi.

Of that Malachie spea∣keth.

Theo.

Who tolde you so?

Phi.

S. Cyprian, S. Iustine, S. Ire∣neus, and others.

Theo.

You might doe well to speake more directlie for nowe wee knowe not whether you alledge them to expound the Prophet Ma∣lachie,* 1.998 or whether you make them Prophets to tel what shall continew in the Church throughout all Christian Nations in steade of all Aarons offerings.

Phi.

They will tell you the meaning of Malachie.

Theo.

They will in deed: but you neither quote them right, nor applie them right, if you cite them to shew that your Massing Sacrifice was forespoken of by the Prophet Mala∣chie.

Phi.

No? whie?

Theo.

Cyprian in that epistle maketh no mention of Malachie, nor of his woordes:* 1.999 Iustinus and Ireneus alledge him; marie not for the Priests act in offering the sonne of God, nor for Christs secret lodging vnder the formes of bread, but for the praiers and thankes that all the faithful giue to GOD, when they come to bee partakers of this mysterie.

Philand.

They say Malachies woordes are perfourmed in the Eucharist.

Theo.

Not by the Priestes handes or gestures, but by the peoples heartes and voyces.

Philand.

Those be your shyftes.

Theoph.

Goe to, you shifters: is it not e∣nough for you to beguile the simple with emptie soundes, shewes, and names, but you will resist a manifest trueth when you are sure to haue it prooued to your faces?

* 1.1000Cyprian in his 63. epistle meddleth not with Malachies wordes, but if you woulde in deede learne what hee thought or wrate of that prophesie, and what hee counted to bee the Sacrifice that Malachie foretolde, turne to his in∣structions giuen to Quirinus against the Iewest, he first booke and 16. chap∣ter, where he proueth that the old sacrifice should bee abolished, and a newe suc∣ceede: and there you shal find him expound it to bee Sacrificium laudis & iustitiae:

the Sacrifice of praise and righteousnes, and that by no worse mans authoritie than Dauids.

Iustinus I grant alleadgeth the wordes, and saith, God (in that speech) doth witnes, that all the sacrifices, which Christ Iesus appointed to be done in his name, at the Eucharist of bread (and wine) are acceptable to him. But what Sacrifices they were, which Christ deliuered and prescribed in the Eu∣charist for his, to do, the wordes of Iustinus that presently follow do perfectly o∣pen.* 1.1001 Preces quidem & gratiarū actiones bonorum perfectas solas esse & Deo gratas hostias ego quo{que} concedo. Haec enim sola facienda acceperunt Christiani in aridi hu∣midi{que} sui cibi commemoratione, in quo, mortis quam per se perpessus•• est Deus Dei filius memoria re colitur. That the prayers and thankes of the good are the on∣ly perfect sacrifices and pleasant to God I confesse. For these onely (sacri∣fices) haue the christians receiued to be done in the celebration of that their (Eucharistical) food & liquor, in which the memory of the death of the son of God, who himselfe was God, is renewed. You should haue spared the ve∣ry quoting of this place by mine aduise: for if all the Preachers in England would haue laide their heades together in wordes to crosse your actuall & cor∣porall sacryficing the flesh of Christ, they could not haue done it in quicker and smarter speech.

Ireneus maketh euen as much for you, as Iustinus did: for he not onely sub∣uerteth your reall sacrificing of Christ, when hee teacheth that the church offe∣reth the creatures of bread and wine in token of her thankefulnesse vnto God: but the very wordes of Malachie he expoundeth by S. Iohns authority for the praiers of the Sainctes.* 1.1002 Benè ait, & in omni loco incensum offertur nomini meo, & sacrificium purum. Incensa autem Iohan. in Apocalypsi orationes ait esse Sanctorum. * 1.1003 Et ideo nos quoque offerre vult munus ad altare frequenter sine intermissione. Est ergo altare in coelis.* 1.1004 Illuc enim preces nostrae & oblationes nostrae diriguntur. Well saith God (by Malachie) In euery place incense is offered to my name and a pure sacrifice. Now incense Iohn in his Apocalypse calleth the prayers of the Sainctes. And therefore (God) will haue vs offer a gift at (his) altar cōtinually without intermission. The altar is in heauen. Thither are our prai∣ers and oblations directed.

Phi.

Yet S. Irenens applyeth the wordes of Malachie to the Eucharist.

Theo.

He doth, but that sacrifice he saith is the offering vnto God the first fruits of his creatures for a thankesgiuing: and with that restriction hee limiteth the word offerimus which he often vseth:* 1.1005 Offerre igitur oportet Deo primitias eius crea∣turae. Offerimus einon quasi indigenti, sed gratias agentes donationi eius, & sancti∣ficantes creaturam. Wee must offer to God (but) the first fruites of his crea∣tures. Wee offer to him not that he wanteth, but giuing him thankes for his bountifulnesse, and sanctifieng the creature. Here is a sacrifice of thanks∣giuing for his mercies, & not Christ, but the creatures of bread and wine offe∣red vnto God with prayer, and other christian duties which hee nameth, as cleane thoughtes, faith without hypocrisie, firme hope, feruent dilecti∣on:

these are the sacrifices of the new Testament & of the Lords table, not pro∣per to the priest, but common to the people: nor finished with the hāds, but per∣fourmed with the spirite of man, which is the true seruice of the second co∣uenant.

Phi.

You turne and winde the Scriptures as you please: but sure the Pro∣phet Malachie directly toucheth our Sacrifice.* 1.1006

Theo.

You dreame so ear∣nestly of it, that all the Fathers in Christes church can not pull you from it. What Cyprian, Iustine, and Ireneus write of this prophesie you do or may vnderstand by that which is saide; if the number bee too smal you may haue moe, to assure you that the Prophet neuer thought of your reall and cor∣porall sacrificing of Christes fleshe to God the Father by the Priestes fin∣gers.

Tertullian alleadging the very wordes, a 1.1007Et in omni loco offerentur munda Sacrificia nomini meo. In euery place shall there bee brought cleane Sa∣crifices vnto my name: addeth, Indubitatè, quod in omni terra exire habe∣bat praedicatio Apostolorum. Vndoubtedly (the Prophet Malachie mea∣neth) that the preaching of the Apostles was to bee spredde ouer all the earth. Against Marcion hee sayeth, b 1.1008 Et in omni loco Sacrificium nomine meo offeretur, & sacrificium mundum, scilicet simplex oratio de conscientia pura. In euerie place shall there bee offered in my name a sacrifice, and that a cleane sacrifice, to witte, sincere praier from a pure conscience. So Eusebius. c 1.1009Where (Malachie) doeth say, that incense and sacrifice are offered to God in euerie place, what else meaneth hee but that (it is done) in euery Countrie and in all Nations, which in deede were to offer to the most high God the incense of prayer and sacrifice which is called cleane, no longer by blood, but by godly workes. Nowe what those workes were, Cyrill will teach you. d 1.1010Wee vse sacrifices, but of the spirite and minde. For wee haue a precept that leauing the grosse seruice (of the Iewes) wee shoulde yeelde a subtile, fine and spirituall sacrifice. And therefore wee offer vnto God for a sweete smell, all sortes of vertues, faith, hope, charitie, iustice, continence, obedience, mildnesse, per∣petuall prayses, and other (such) vertues. So Hierom. e 1.1011 Incense is offe∣red to the name of the Lord in euerie place and a cleane sacrifice not in the oblations of the olde Testament, but in the holynesse of Euangelicall puritie, of which incense wee reade in other places (as when Dauid sayeth,) Let my praier bee directed as incense, in thy sight, and the lifting vppe of mine handes (as) an Euening sacrifice. So Augustine: f 1.1012 Heare yee (Donatistes) the Lorde saying (thus) by his Prophet, In euerie place shall incense bee yeelded to my name and a pure sacrifice. With this sacrifice of your brethren, which God (most) respecteth, you shew your selues, by your cauilling, to bee grieued, and if at any time you heare the name of the Lord to bee praysed from East to West, which is the liuely sacrifice, whereof it is written, Offer to God the sacrifice of

praise, your coūtinances hang as did that homicides (which slue his brother.)

Phi.

This nothing infringeth our assertion.

Theo.

But this declareth the meaning of Malachie.

Phi.

Our oblation is a sacrifice of praise & thanks∣giuing.

Theo.

Had you kept your selues there and not runne farther to fan∣sies of your owne framing, and Uictimes (as you call them) of your own pre∣suming, you might haue offered that cleane sacrifice foretolde by Malachie, which nowe you doe not.

Phi.

You will not haue his wordes pertaine to the Eucharist.

Theo.

You will neuer speake trueth so long as you may shift with facing.

Phi.

Confesse you thē that Malachie spake of the Eucharist?* 1.1013

The.

With all our hearts.

Phi.

You bee nowe ouer the shooes in your owne cestern.

The.

But it doeth me no hurt, for I feele no wet.

Phi.

You graunt the Eucharist to be a sacrifice which your fellowes will be angrie with you for.

Theo.

Neither they, nor I, euer denied the Eucharist to be a sacrifice. The verie name infor∣ceth it to be the sacrifice of praise and thankesgiuing, which is the true and liuely sacrifice of the new Testament.

Phi.

I thought you woulde backe againe.

Theo.

I am nowe as farfoorth as euer I was, or as any of these ancient fathers are, which haue expounded the wordes of Malachie.

Phi.

Then you must affirme it to be a sacrifice.

Theo.

Leaue this foolish repeating and often inculcating that which neither benefi∣teth you, nor annoyeth vs.* 1.1014 The Lordes table in respect of his graces & mer∣cies there proposed to vs is an heauenly banquet which we must eate, & not sa∣crifice: but the duties which he requireth at our handes when wee approch to his table, are sacrifices, not sacramentes: as namely to offer him thankes and praise, faith and obedience, yea our bodies and soules to bee liuing, holy, and acceptable sacrifices vnto him, which is our reasonable seruing of him.

Phi.

This must bee doone when wee receiue the sacrament, but this is no part of the Sacrament.* 1.1015

Theoph.

These bee the conditions without which God will not haue vs come to his Table, and for these respects the Eucharist hath his name, thereby to put vs in minde of our duties.

Phi.

Wee do not deny these sacrifices to bee good and holy, and then most requisite, when wee drawe neerest vnto God, as at his table, but we adde that the very sacrament it selfe is a sacrifice, and the celebration thereof is a continuance of that ob∣lation which Christ made in his owne person on the Altar of the crosse.

Theo.

This wee graunt to bee most true in that sense which Sainct Augustine and other auncient and Catholike Fathers doe auouch it: that is, because Sacra∣mentes haue the names of those thinges whose Sacramentes they are.* 1.1016 And since this is the Sacrament of the Lords death and a passion, we do not sticke to say that Christ is dayly crucified and sacrificed for the sinnes of the world: mary not really, or corporally, but by way of a mysterie; that is his crosse and bloodshedding are proclaymed and confirmed in the eyes of all the faith∣full by these signes of his death, and seales of his truth, by which hee first witnessed that his bodie should bee broken, and his blood shed for the remission of our sinnes.

Philand.

Why then refuse you the fathers expressing their opinion of this sacrifice?* 1.1017

Theo.

Nay, why doe you abuse their wordes, to support your errors: and wheresoeuer you find the names of sacrifice and oblation in them referred to the Lordes supper, why alleadge you the places with such confidence as if the fathers were at your commaundement, to meane nothing but your reall sacri∣ficing the sonne of God vnder the formes of bread and wine?

Phi.

What other meaning could they haue?

Theo.

I haue already shewed you by their owne writinges what other meaning they had.

Phi.

You say, they call it a sacrifice, because it is a signe and memoriall of his death on the crosse.

Theo.

That is sufficient to shew their meaning.

Phi.

But their words are so weightie, that a cold and naked signification, doth not answere the force of them.* 1.1018 The Lambe of God laide vpon the table: conc. Nice. The quickning holy sacrifice: the vnbloody host and victime. Cyril. Alex. in conc. Ephes. Anath. 11. The onely inconsumptible vi∣ctime, without which there is no religion.* 1.1019 Cypr. de caen. Dom. nu. 2. Chrys. hom. 17 ad Heb. The sacrifice of our price. Aug. confess. lib. 9. cap. 13.

Theo.

What a pat∣ching you keepe to no purpose?

Phi.

Dare you attribute these speeches to the creatures of bread and wine?

Theo.

Dare you attribute them to the Priestes externall gestures? Is his act the lambe of God, or the price of our ransome, or the holy and quickning sacrifice?

Phi.

No, but the fleshe and blood of Christ are, which the Priest offereth, as wee say, to God for the sinnes of the people.

Theo.

* 1.1020To what ende then alleadge you these places for the Priests act, which shewe the worthinesse of Christes sacrifice, and the power of his death?

Phil.

Our sacrifice worketh those effectes.

Theo.

And so doth ours.

Phi.

Then you bee of our opinion.

Theo.

As though we did resist you touching the thing that is offered, and not touching the manner of offering. That Christ is the lamb of God laid on the Lordes table before the eyes of our mindes, that his flesh woun∣ded and bloud shed for our sinnes are an holy quickning, and euer during sacrifice, and the most sufficient price of our redemption, we vrge this against you, you neede not vrge it against vs, wee fully and faithfully teach it: The question betweene vs, is howe this sacrifice once made on the Crosse is daily re∣nued in our mysteries.

* 1.1021You will haue a reall, corporall, and local profering of Christs fleshe to God the father vnder the formes of bread and wine made by the Priestes externall actions and gestures for the sinnes of such as he lift: this is we say a wicked and blasphemous mockerie. His passion is the true oblation of the church: his flesh wounded and blood shedde are the only sacrifices for sinne: which oblation that it might be alwayes in our hearts and sights, he hath commaunded vs to conti∣nue in his church, by a memoriall of his owne erecting: and to applie the same to our selues by a stedfast hope in his mercies & humble prayer vnto his holynes as often as wee approach to his table to bee partakes of his death & me∣rites.* 1.1022 And therefore the Priestes act can no way bee auailable for those that stand by & looke on, and neither communicate with him in praier or in the par∣ticipation of the mysteries. And your alleadging four and twentie places of the

fathers for this kinde of sacrifice, of which they neuer thought, sheweth what fi∣delitie and sinceritie you haue vsed in the rest of your Rhemish obseruations, which you sent ouer but to occupy mens heades, whiles you were working an other feate.

Phi.

What feat could we haue in hand,* 1.1023 but the testifieng of trueth to our Countrie men, & that wee haue done to the vtter confutation of your hereticall doctrine?

The.

You must needs cōfute vs, for besides abusing of scriptures, which you wind like a withe about your fingers: where the Fathers will not serue your turnes, you will force them euen by skores t•• depose what you list: and though they vse but generall and indifferent wordes, yet you will by and by quote them to be of your opinion.* 1.1024

Phi.

Where haue we so done?

Theo.

Omit the places that are past in this beadrole of Fathers which here are brought, shewe but one that euer mentioned your kinde of sacrifice, wee will trouble you no farther, you shall set vp your Masse againe.

Phi.

What wee shall not.

Theo.

I will helpe you the best I can.

Phi.

Any of the places which wee bring, is sufficient to iustifie our sacrifice.

Theo.

As well euery, as any. They cal the Lordes Supper ministred according to his institution, an OBLATION and SACRIFICE, or as your pen runneth, an HOST and a VICTIME: what then?

Phi.

Then wee say trueth when we teach it to be a sacrifice, & not only a sa∣crame••t.* 1.1025

The.

Then you lie the more, when you say that you really & corporally sacrifice the Sonne of God vnder the formes of bread and wine: and that the Priestes act, though the people neither vnderstand what he saith, neither know what he doth, but gaze on him whiles he alone murmureth to himself in a toūg vnknown, & maketh that priuat to one which should be common to al by Christs institution: is notwithstanding very profitable before God, for such as hire his paines, or please his humour: to bee had in minde, when hee rubbeth his memory.

Phi.

You peruert our doctrine.

Theo.

It may bee my termes doe not please you,* 1.1026 but I tell you the thinges which wee reiect in your sacrifice. Leaue your presumptuous and meritorious application of Christes death as pleaseth the Priest, leaue your reall and corporall inclosing of Christ vnder accidentes and shewes of bread and wine, confesse the Lords Supper to be a publike actiō & pertinent to the whole church as it was ordained, and let your prayers instruct and direct the hearts of the simple and haue their open & euident assent, & as for the name of sacrifice and oblation, it shall not offend vs.

Phi.

The chiefe occasion of your hatred against the dayly sacrifice is this, that you do not acknowlege the real presence of Christ in this sacrament, & that maketh you neither to offer him,* 1.1027 nor to adore him as we doe: yea skant to abide the fathers wordes wherein they witnesse that he is offered, and must bee ado∣red vnder the formes of bread and wine.

Theo.

We hate your follies, we hate not their speeches; and yet there are reasons why wee doe not thinke our selues bounde to take vppe the frequent vse of their termes in that point, as wee

see you doe. For first they bee such wordes as Christ and his Apostles did for∣beare, and therefore our faith may stand without them. Next they be darke and obscure speeches wholy depending on the nature and signification of Sacra∣mentes, which the simple doe hardly conceiue.* 1.1028 Thirdly wee finde by experi∣ence before our eyes, howe their phrases haue entangled your senses, whiles you greedily persued the wordes, and omitted the rules that shoulde haue mol∣lified and directed the letter. These causes make vs the warier and the willin∣ger to keepe to the wordes of the holy Ghost, though the fathers applications, if you therewithall take their expositions, doe but in other termes teach that which we receiue and confesse to bee true and sincere.

Philand.

* 1.1029Woulde you make vs beleeue that the sacrifice of the Altar hath no warrant in the Scripture?

Theo.

Shewe mee the place where it is so called, and then will I graunt that in the worde I was deceiued.

Phil.

First you hearde the worde OBLATION in Malachie.

Theo.

I did, but I heare him not applie it to the Sacrament.* 1.1030

Philand.

Melchisedec by his oblation of bread and wine did properly and most singularly prefigurate this sa∣crifice.

Theo.

But the Scripture doeth not say, that either Melchisedec did sacrifice bread and wine, or that Christ at his last supper did imitate Mel∣chisedec.

Phi.

Hee was a Priest according to the order of Melchisedec.

Theo.

Saint Paul sheweth in what thinges Melchisedec resembled Christ, as in that hee was the king of righteousnesse and peace,* 1.1031 without father, without mother, hauing neyther beginning of his dayes, nor ende of his life, (and) remaining a Priest for euer, without partner or successour: but of sacrificing bread and wine, as you say Melchisedec did, Saint Paul saith nothing.

Phil.

The Fathers do, almost euerie one of them.

Theo.

I doe not deny, the resemblace to be both tolerable and vsuall among the fathers, but I say the scriptures haue no such thing.

Phil.

Sainct Paul himselfe maketh an whole discourse to proue the Sa∣crament to bee the Sacrifice of Christs body and blood in the church.

Theo.

Where? In his Apocalypse,* 1.1032 which your law mentioneth?

Phi.

No Sir, I alleadge his canonicall writinges.

Theo.

Where may a man seeke to finde it?

Phil.

Looke our obseruations vppon his 10. chapter of the first to the Corinthians.

Theo.

Nay in your obseruations I knowe wee shall finde many thinges that are not in the scriptures: they were purposely made, that where your religion stood not in the text, at lest it might stand in the gloze: but I would heare Saint Paul saye so much, or but halfe such a worde, and then I were aunswe∣red.

Phi.

* 1.1033In all that discourse you may obserue that our bread and chalice, our table and Altar, the participation of our host and oblation, bee compared or resem∣bled point by point in all effectes, conditions, and proprieties to the Altars, hosts, sacrifices and immolations of the Iewes and Gentiles: Which the Apostle would not, nor could not haue doone in this Sacrament of the Altar, rather than in o∣ther Sacramentes or seruice of our religion, if it onely had not been a Sacrifice & the

proper worship of God among the Christians, as the other were among the Iewes and Heathen.

Theo.

Tel me not what I may obserue, but what you can conclude. Is the worde sacrifice attributed to the Lordes Table in that chapter?

Phi.

By resemblaunce and comparison it is.

Theophil.

Speake first whether so much bee expressed by the Apostle in plaine wordes; and then after wee will examine what may bee collected.

Philand.

In plaine wordes it is not, but * 1.1034 point by point it is compared in all effects, conditions and proprieties to the altars, hostes, sacrifices and immolations of the Iewes and Gentiles.

Theo.

Where is this resemblaunce of your bread and Chalice, table and altar, host, and oblation point by point in all effectes, conditions and proprieties to the altars, hostes, sacrifices and immolations of Iewes and Gentiles?

Phi.

In S. Paul.

Theophil.

I see no such thing.

Philand.

You wil not for feare you should be driuen to confesse that S. Paul calleth our host a Sacrifice.

Theo.

Let vs then examine S. Pauls purpose, that we may see both what he saieth, and to what end he saith it.

The christians at Corinth in respect of aquaintaunce or alliaunce with o∣thers that were Heathens in that citie,* 1.1035 did not sticke, if they were inuited, to goe to the banquetes and feastes of the Pagans, which they kept in the Tem∣ples of their Gods, when they did sacrifice vnto them, and at which they spent such cates and wines as they had then offered to their Idols.* 1.1036 The pretēce which the christians had for their resorting to the Pagans feastes was this, that they knewe the idoll was nothing, and therefore giuing thankes to God for his creatures, they did eate of all things without scruple of conscience, how∣soeuer it had beene vsed, or to whomsoeuer it had beene offered.

This Sainct Paul reproueth them for: and sheweth that though the Idoll in it selfe bee nothing, yet since the Gentiles did offer those thinges, which were at their idols feastes, not to God but to diuels, the christians could not sit at the same tables with the Pagans,* 1.1037 reioycing, triumphing, and feasting in the names of their idolles, but they must needes bee partakers of their idolatrie. Nowe howe that could stand with their comming to the Lords ta∣ble, where they professed to serue him, and none but him, hee wisheth them to consider.

The reason which hee draweth from the Lordes table, (you call it a comparison point by point, in all effectes, conditions and proprieties, to the al∣tars, hostes and sacrifices of the Heathen) may bee eyther a comparison or an opposition, but liker of the twaine to bee rather an opposition than a com∣parison. For so Sainct Paul knitteth vp his argument. You can not drink (both) the Lordes cup, and the cup of diuelles: you can not bee partakers (or eate) of the Lords table, and of the table of diuels.* 1.1038 The one you are par∣takers of: as you know. For the cup of thanksgiuing, which we blesse, is it not the cōmunion (or participatiō) of Christs blood? The bread which we breake is it not the communion of Christs body? You cannot there fore haue any fel∣lowship

with the table or cup of diuels, but God will surely reuenge it, as the forsaking of himselfe and seruing of his enimie. This may the whole drift of S. Paul stand good and his reason forcible without your point by point or your effectes, conditions, and proprieties of altars, hostes or Sacrifices.

* 1.1039If any list to make it a comparison, he may for me; & yet that way I see no cause why you should so proportion Christes mysteries to the diuels sacrifices, that point by point they must answere one an other in all effectes, conditions and proprieties of Altars, hostes and immolations. For this sufficeth S. Pauls in∣te••t, that where the christians thought it a matter indifferent, and lawfull to eate & drink in the temples and at the tables of Heathen Idols, he by examples both of christian and Iewish religion sheweth them that though they did not sa∣crifice: and so tooke themselues to be free from Idolatrie: yet seeing they re∣ioyced and feasted with the men and meates that were addicted and consecrated vnto Idols, they were partakers of their wickednesse. And therefore the thing which S. Paul vrgeth in this comparison of Christian, Iewish and heath••nish religion is not offering or sacrificing, but in plaine words eating & drinking at the same table with men of any profession, where their rites and ceremonies, be they good or bad,* 1.1040 are vsed, as well as their offeringes and immolations: and in that sense the conclusion holdeth on either side, though the thinges be not re∣ally sacrificed vnto God or the diuell, but dedicated or consecrated to either of them, or frequented in either of their names. For as he that eateth and drinketh at the Lordes table, partaketh with him and his; so he that doth the like at the diuels table, linketh himselfe in the like fellowship with the diuell and his ad∣herentes, though the meates that are set on the table bee not first solemnly sa∣crificed to the diuell but blessed either in his name or with his ceremonies, who being a wicked spirit affecteth to be honored in like sort and equal ••tate with the true and mighty God.

Phi.

S. Paul sayth the Gentiles did sacrifice their meates to the diuel.

Theo.

So much the worse for those Christians that did eat them, yet that doeth not in∣ferre that the creatures at the Lords table were, point by point, in all effects and conditions vsed and sacrificed to him as the heathens cates were to their Idoles.* 1.1041 And to draw your argument from the diuels table to proue that the bread and wine at the Lordes table be sacrificed is a strange kinde of diuinitie, if it bee not worse. Certainly not the sacrifice, but the Sacrament ordained by Christ to be taken and eaten from his table, doeth make vs members of Christ: and ioyneth vs all in one fellowship of his mysticall body: the Priestes sacificing of Christes flesh doth not helpe the matter, for ought that we know, or you proue, but by such sleeuelesse,* 1.1042 I wil not say witlesse conceites as these be.

And yet your owne comparison ouerthroweth your owne oblation. For if in Pagan, Iewish, and euen in Christian religion, as you say, they which eate of the Sacrifice be partakers of the sacrifice, we infer that in your priuate masses where the Priest alone ••ateth and no man eateth with him, the people haue no part in that sacrifice: & so your oblation, if it be any, auaileth no man but your

selues, because no man eateth of it besides your selues, which is more against your profit, than the name of sacrifice would do you good, if you could ••uince it by S. Paul.

Phi.

God helpe you masters: ye be so addicted to the bellie, that you thinke of nothing, ••ut of eating & drinking. The sacrifice you admit not, the sacramēt you adore not: but if you may eate and drinke, then are you safe.

Theo.

This diuinity will better become the diuels table whence you lately fet your sacri∣fice,* 1.1043 than the Lordes sacramentes or the seruauntes of Christ. To eate & drinke at his table is not our inuention but his institution: and therefore no point of gluttonie, as you leu••ly surmise, but of pietie, which you skant beleeue: as appeareth by your abolishing that order which Christ left, and deuising an other of your owne without any warrant from him. For where Christ said, take ye, eate ye, you like not that, but haue chaunged it into Looke ye, adore ye, telling the people they do God good seruice when they giue his diuine honour to dead & ••••slesse creatures.

Phi.

No Sir, we teach them to adore Christ and not the creatures of bread and wine.* 1.1044

Theo.

You first imagine the creatures to be Christ, & then you giue them diuine honor, as if they were Christ: but if they be creatures still, howe doth your false imagination excuse you from idolatrie?

Phi.

Wee be sure they be not. For Christ saide of them This is my bodie, and this is my blood; and therefore honoring that which the Priest holdeth in his hands, and lifteth vp af∣ter consecration, we be sure we honor Christ and not the creatures of bread and win••.

Theo.

So S. Paul said, The rocke was Christ, and yet to worship that vi∣sible rocke with diuine honor, had beene idolatrie.

Phi.

The speeches be nothing like.* 1.1045

Theo.

Then tell vs the difference.

Phi.

Christ spake the one actiuely and presently: the other was but a collectiō of things past long before made by S. Paul. And again the one is in the new Testament the other in the old.

Theo.

You might haue added that the one was stone, the o∣ther bread: the one in the desert, the other in the city.

Philand.

Keepe your tri∣fling distinctions for your selues.

Theo.

They wil no way but be ioyned cheek by cheek with yours. Christ, you say, spake the one; & who spake the other in Paul but Christ? Paul said of himselfe that * 1.1046 Christ spake in him: and Christ saieth of his Apostles, * 1.1047 It is not you that speak but the spirit of your father that speak∣eth in you. And therefore you must receiue that which Paul sp••ke * 1.1048 not as the word of men, but, as it is in deed, the word of god: & that cannot went trueth because the word of God is truth.

Phi.

We do not deny but he spake truth.

Theo.

Then haue we plainer proofe that the stony rock in the desert wa•• Christ: than you haue that the bread on the Lords table is Christ. For Christ doth not say in precise terms that the bread was his body, but only, this is my body. And as for the diuersitie of the two testaments, that maketh nothing to this issue. For if the rocke of the old test. were Christ, the bread of the new Test. can be no more: and therfore diuine adoration was as due to the rocke then, as it is to the bread now.

Phi.

By no meanes. For the rocke was not transubstantiated into Christ as

the bread is.

The.

If Pauls words be true without chāging the rock into Christ, why may not the words of Christ be likewise true without turning the substāce of bread into the substance of his body?

Phi.

We tell you the reason. The one is substantially conuerted into Christs flesh, and so was not the other.

Theo.

This is your fansie, to dreame of a difference where none is: the affrmations be like, why should not the adorations bee like? And if you could not worship the rock, without cōmitting idolatrie though the rock were Christ, how can you giue di∣uine honor to the bread and wine since they bee Christ euen after the same sort that the rock was?

* 1.1049Or, if that comparison do not please you, why do you worship the pixe wherein the bread is, & so the chalice wherein the wine is, & not the priest that by your do∣ctrine doth create & eate Christ?

Phi.

We worship neither the pixe, nor the cha∣lice, but Christ that is contained in them both.

Theo.

And is not the same Christ that was contained in them both, inclosed in the priests body when he eateth and drinketh your sacrifice?* 1.1050

Phi.

Yeas.

Theo.

And as really contained in his body, as in your golden boxe or gilden chalice?

Phi.

But yet we adore not the flesh of christ after it is once entered the mouth of man.

Theo.

You do not I know, but why should you not? Why suffer you Christ in any place to be without the honor, that is due vnto him? Wil you serue him where please you, & ourskip him at your dis∣cretions?

Phi.

Should we adore him, when we know not where he is?

The.

You be as sure he is in the Priest as in the pixe: for you see him in neither: Why then do you adore him in the one, and not in the other?

Phi.

* 1.1051I think you would not haue vs adore our sauiour.

The.

I would not haue you adore him whē & where you only list, much lesse to adore a peece of bread in his steed: be first sure you haue him & then adore him wheresoeuer you find him.

Phi.

So we do.

Th.

You do not. You adore him not in the priest.

Phi.

We see him not.

The.

Wil you not adore him till you see him? How then do you see him in the chalice, or in the pixe?

Phi.

There we be certaine he is.

Theo.

You be as certaine of the other.

Phi.

The fathers wil vs to adore the flesh of Christ in the mysteries, but not in other mēs bodies.

The.

Do they wil you to adore the mysteries themselues, I mean the mystical & sacramental signes?

Phi.

Not the signes thēselues, they bee but accidents & not to be adored, but the sacrament it self they teach vs to adore.

The.

With diuine honor?

Phi.

With what els?

The.

Adoration, if it be attributed in any father to the mystical signes is that kind of reuerence which we yeeld to things that be sanctified for Gods vse, & not godly honor.

Phi.

I smel a rat.

The.

* 1.1052You were best then looke to your host: for that of all others, that is a most dange∣rous beast to your deuotion.

Phi.

Why?

The.

I wil tel you that anon, in the mean time what was it, that troubled your wits?

Phi.

With a sly distinction of twofold adoration you think to slip the fathers which we will bring against you for the worshipping of the blessed sacrament.

The.

Is that al your feare?

Phi.

That is a way to wrangle, & to make the people beleeue our doctrine touching adoratiō of the sacrament is not catholik.

The.

Set aside one father, whom your selues shall not deny but that he speaketh of the substāce of bread & wine: & in the rest, which

you bring we wil vse no such aduātage.

Phi.

What wil you not do?

The.

We wil not choke you with that second acception of adoration: shew that the fathers a∣dored the sacrament, or taught the people to so doe, wee require no more.

Phi.

That I will presently.

S. Austen saith ep. 118. c. 3. that it is he that the Apostle saith shalbe damned,* 1.1053 that doth not by singular veneration or adoration make a difference between this meat & al others. And again in Psa. 91. No man eateth it before he adore it. And S. Ambro. li. 3 c. 12. de spi. sanct. We adore the flesh of Christ in the mysteries. S. Chrysost. hom. 24. in 1. Cor. We adore him on the altar, as the Sages did in the manger. S. Nazianzene in Epitap. Gorgon. My sister called vpon him which is worshipped vpon the altar. Theodo∣ret. Dial. 2. In cōfes.* 1.1054 The mystical tokēs be adored. S. Denys this Apostles scholer, made solemne inuocation of the sacrament after consecration. Eccl. Hierar. ca. 3. part. 3. in princip. & before the receiuing, the whole church of God crieth vpon it, Domine nō sum dignus, Deus propitius esto mihi peccatori. Lamb of god, that takest away the sins of the world, haue mercie on vs. * 1.1055 And for better discerning of this diuine meat, we are called from cōmon profane houses to Gods church: for this, we are forbiddē to make it in vul∣gar apparel, & are appointed sacred solemne vestments. Hier. in Epitap. Nepot. & li. 2. adv. Pel. ca. 9. Paulinus ep. 12. ad Seuer. Io. Diac. in vit. D. Greg. li. 3. ca. 59. For this is the hallowing of Corporals & chalices. Ambr. 2. off. ca. 28. Nazian. Orat. ad Arianos: Optatus li. 6. in initio. For this profane tables are remoued & altars consecrated. Aug. Serm. de temp. 255. For this, the very priests themselues are honorable, chast, sacred, Hier. ep. 1. ad Heliodor. ca. 17. li. 1. adv. Iouin. ca. 19. Ambr. in 1. Tim. 3. For this the people is forbidden to touch it with common hands. Nazian. orat. ad Arian. in initio. For this great care & solicitude is taken that no part of either kind fall to the ground, Cyril. Hieros. mystag. 5. in fine. Orig. ho. 13. in ca. 25. Exod. For this sacred prouision is made that if any hosts or partes of the Sacrament doe remaine vnreceiued, they bee most religiously reserued with all honour and diligence possible, and for this, examinatiō of consciences, confession, continencie, & (as S. Augustine saith) receiuing it fasting. Thus do we catholiks & the church of God discerne the holy body & blood by S. Pauls rule,* 1.1056 not only from your prophane bread & wine (which not by any secrete abuse of your Curates or clearkes, but by the verie order of your booke, the Minister, if any remaine after your Communion, may take home with him to his own vse, and therfore it is no more holie by your own iudgement than the rest of his meates) but from al other either vulgar or sanctified meates, as the catechumens bread, & our vsual holy bread.

Theo.

I had thought we should haue had adoration of the sacrament proued, & here commeth * 1.1057hallowing of coapes, corporals, chalices, Altars, priestes, pixes, and (not at al, or last of al) the hallowing of soules, which in wisemens account deserued to goe alone or at least first in the Kalender. For your often & curious clensing of the outsides of coates, cups, stones, handes & such like implementes sauoreth of the Pharisees holines, who supposed then as you do now, that God is highly serued with such solemne prouision & sacred solicitude, though this be more than euer Christ at his last supper had care for, or mind of, for ought that we find by report of the Gospell. Mary this is not our purpose. You must

proue your adoration of the sacrament, let hallowing of Uestments and Altars alone till an other time: and persue that which is denied.

Phi.

So we do. Haue you not here S. Austen, S. Ambrose, S. Chrysostom, S. Nazianzene,* 1.1058 Theodorete, & S. Denys, that the sacrament should bee ado∣red?

Theo.

Theodorete is not in your bookes, that he is not sainted with the rest: yet is he an ancient & learned writer: but take your pleasure: The rest well deserue it, and therefore I am not angrie with it, though S. Paul extende the name sainct to the hearers as well as to the ••eachers, & to the liuing aswell as to the dead.

Phi.

You would be saints.

The.

God grant vs to be his seruants.

Phi.

You must change your faith first.

The.

Why? We worship no creatures in steed of Christ,* 1.1059 as you do.

Phi.

Wil that lying neuer be left?

Theo.

Would God for your own sakes it were a ly, but I feare it is 〈◊〉〈◊〉 true.

Phi.

Christ wee adore, creatures we do not.

Theo.

The sacramentes you adore, and those be creatures: as in Baptisme the water, in the Lords supper, the bread & wine.

Phi.

We adore the B. sacrament of the Altar, as wee learned of the catholike fathers: creatures we adore none.

Theo.

Of what fathers did you learn it?

Phi.

I haue told you, of S. Austen; S. Ambrose, S. Chrysostom, S. Nazianzene, Theodorete, & S. Denys.

Theo.

Set Theodorete aside (who writing in greeke vseth the word adoration for an externall regard & reuerence, such as we giue to the books & vessels that are san∣ctified to diuine vses, though more amply to the sacramentes ordained by God himself: & saith that the mystical signes themselues remaining in their former (& earthly) substance are adored, that is reuerently & religiously handled, as becommeth so great mysteries:) I say set him aside, & not one of the rest so much as toucheth that which you should proue.

Phi.

They say the sacrament must be adored.

Theo.

They say Christ must be adored.

Phi.

Yea, but in the mysteries, and on the altar.

Theo.

So Christ is to bee adored, in heauen, in his church, & most of al in our own hearts & bodies: will you thence collect that either heauen, or the Temple, or our selues are to be ado∣red?

Phi.

But neither heauen, nor the temple are sacraments.

Theo.

Yet Christ is adored in them, though they be not in like sort with him, & so may Christ be a∣dored in the misteries, though the mysteries themselues may haue no such honor.

Phi.

S. Austē saith, It is he that the Apostle saith should be damned that doth not by singular veneration or adoration make a difference betweene this meate & all others.

Theo.

S. Austen in that place speaketh not one word of adoration. He saith: The Apostle affirmeth it to be vnworthily receiued of thē, qui hoc non discernebāt à caeteris cibis veneratione singulariter debita, which did not discern it from other meates with the veneration (that was properly or) singularly due (vnto it.)

Phil.

* 1.1060Uery wel. Singular veneration is al one with diuine adoration.

Theo.

In your corrupted iudgemēts.

Phi.

What els is it?

Theo.

Veneratiō is a word that S. Austen fourdeth al the signes & sacraments of the old & new Testament, a∣doratiō he reserueth only to God. Of veneratiō he saith, Qui veneratur ••ignum vtile diuinitus ins••itutum, non hoc•• vèneratur quod videtur & transit, sed illud

potius, quo talia cuncta referenda sunt. Hee that reuerenceth a signe that is profitable, and ordayned by God, reuerenceth not the thing which is visi∣ble and transitorie, but that rather, to which all such (signes) are referred. And so concludeth namely of baptisme and the Lordes Supper.* 1.1061 Quae vnusquis{que} cū percipit qu•• referantur imbutus agnoscit,* 1.1062 vt ea non carnal•• seruitute sed spirituali potius libertate veneretur. Which (two Sacramentes) when euerie Christian receiueth, he knoweth, being once partaker of them, whither to refer them, that he may reuerence them with a spirituall libertie, rather than with a car∣nall seruitude.

And least you should not vnderstand what difference he putteth betweene the corporall creature and the heauenly brightnesse in this, and so in other sacra∣mentes, he saith farther:* 1.1063 Ea demum est miserabilis animae seruitus signa pro rebus accipere, nec supra creaturam corpoream oculum mentis ad ••auriendum aeternum lu∣men leuare non posse. That is a miserable bondage of the soule, to take the signes (or Sacramentes as you doe) for the thinges themselues, and not to be able to lift vp the eye of the mind aboue the corporal creature to perceiue the eternall brightnesse.

Of adoration he saith, Rectè scribitur hominem ab angelo prohibitum ne se aedo∣raret, sed vnum Deum, sub quo esset ei & ille conseruus. It is very wel recorded in the Scriptures that a man was prohibited by an angel to adore him, but only God, vnder whom he himself was a fellow seruant vnto God. And therefore he saith, * 1.1064Ecce vnum Deum colo, Behold I worship (& adore) none but God▪ and thence he deriueth the name of religion,* 1.1065 Quod ei vni religet animas nostras. Because it relieth our soules on him alone. So that veneration you may giue to sacramentes, adoration you may not, and yet you finely conuey the one into S. Augustines text iointly with the other, as if they were both foūd in his words which they are not.

Phi.

He saith singular veneration.

Theo.

You say so, but he sayeth not so: His words are, Veneratione singulariter debita, with that veneration which is due (onely or) singularly to this Sacrament.

Phi.

And what is that but adoration?* 1.1066

Theo.

If you might be iudges it should be nothing else, but S. Au∣gustine sayth, Not to be contemned, is the veneration due vnto it. Contemptum solum non vult cibus ille: that meate misliketh onele contempt: that is either to bee dayly receiued without regard, or to be still refused vpon pretence of vn∣worthynesse. And that being the case of which S. Augustine disputeth, your cunning serueth you, in steede of examining thēselues, before they receiue it, which S. Augustine meaneth, to set the people not at all to receiue it but to fall downe and adore it with diuine honour in Christes place, which is as wil∣full a contempt of his ordinaunce, and as shamefull an abuse of his sacramentes as can be committed.

Phi.

The same father in an other place saieth of the Sacrament,* 1.1067 No man eateth it before he adore it.

Theo.

Are you not desperatly set, th••t to defile your selues with open idolatrie, will force the Fathers to fit your ••umours a∣gainst

their owne speeches? S. Augustine saith of Christes fleshe which hee tooke of the virgine Marie, Nemo illam carnem manducat nisi prius adorauerit. No man eateth that fleshe of Christ vnlesse hee first adore it: you make no more bones at the matter but strike THE FLESH (of Christ) out of Sainct Augustines wordes,* 1.1068 and referre adoration to the corporall creature, which the Priest holdeth in his fingers. Is not this, trowe you, sounde dealing in the greatest mysteries of our saluation, and imminent peril of your dam∣nation, purposely to shut your eyes least you shoulde see the truth or agnise the rashnesse of your newe founde adoration? What haue Sainct Augustines wordes to doe with your adoring the mysticall signes, when hee directly na∣meth the flesh of Christ, which is both eaten with the spirite, and adored in the spirite: yea the very eating of it is the adoring of it, since it is not ea∣ten but by beleeuing,* 1.1069 hoping and reioycing in it, which are the chiefe branches of Gods diuine honor.

Phi.

As though the fleshe of Christ were not really closed in the forme of bread, and corporally eaten with the mouth of man?

Theo.

One errour must needes drawe on an other,* 1.1070 or rather your reall and carnall presence is the groundworke of all your errors and abuses in the Masse.

Phi.

The deniall of it is the high way to all your heresies and blasphemies against the doctrine of the church: and for our partes, till you leaue that, wee looke for no better at your hands.

Theo.

Looke to your own feete, least whiles you watch our hands, your legges slip into the pit of destruction.

Phi.

Wee bee past all feare of that.

Theo.

And so be those, that are past all recouery: but yet for the sauing of other mens soules if not of yours, we will first weigh the proofes of your adoration, & after not sticke to suruay the partes of your Transubstantiation. Go on there∣fore with your former authorities.

Phi.

S. Ambrose saieth, * 1.1071 We adore the flesh of Christ in the mysteries.

Theo.

Uerily and * 1.1072 so doe wee, but the mysteries and sacramentes themselues wee doe not adore, neither did Sainct Ambrose euer teach any man to adore them.

Phi.

I see you mistake vs. You thinke we adore the formes of bread and wine: where in deede we doe not, but rather we adore Christ the sonne of the ly∣uing God, and second person in Trinitie in those mysteries as Saint Ambrose sayeth, or as wee speake more vsually vnder those * 1.1073 formes of breade and wine.

Theo.

I mistake you not, I knowe you adore that which is locally and really inclosed within the compasse of your host and chalice, supposing it in mat∣ter and substance to bee the glorious body of Christ, apparelled with accidents of bread and wine, as whitenesse, roundnesse, sweetenesse, moystnesse, and such like proprieties of bread and wine; but your foundation wee say is false, and therefore your building must needes bee ruinous. Christ is present in the my∣steries not by the materiall substaunce of his body closed within the formes of bread and wine,* 1.1074 but by a diuine and spirituall vertue and efficience, not mixing 〈…〉〈…〉, but entering the h••rt•• of the faith••ull, and nou∣rishing

them with his spirit and grace to eternall life, the elementes abiding in their proper and former essence and substance. And therefore when you adore them, as if they were Christ in nature and substaunce, which in trueth they are not, you worship not Christ,* 1.1075 but giue his honour to creatures, and in steede of washing your sins away by the death and blood of Christ, you kindle the wrath of God against you, by mystaking his sonne, and adoring the elementes with di∣uine honor in lue of Christ.

Phi.

Tush, we regard not these wordes of yours: we haue assurance from Christ himselfe that it is his body, and so long wee passe not for any thing that you can alleadge or obiect against vs.* 1.1076

Theophil.

But if you misconster his wordes to make a deade and corruptible creature to bee the seconde person in Trinitie, and giue it that honour, which is due to the glori∣ous and immortall God, what assuraunce can you haue that Christ Iesus will put vp this reproach at your handes, and not auenge himselfe on you, as on proud idolate••s?

Phi.

Are you well in your wits to vrge vs so often with open Idolatrie, where as wee shewe you so plaine proofes of our defence?

Theo.

Plaine quoth you?* 1.1077 In good faith they bee such as no meane Scholer woulde stumble at. Christ, you proue, is adored in the mysteries and on the Altar. Why shoulde hee not bee adored in all places, and in all his giftes, and for all the monumentes of his grace and mercie bequeathed vs in this life, that he may prepare vs for the next? And if this rule bee generall, howe great cause haue wee to a∣d••re him in the water, where hee clenseth vs from our sinnes: and at the table, where hee feedeth and strengthneth our soules and spirites with their proper nourishment, which is the precious ransome that was paide to recouer vs from death and hell, and to bring vs to his immortall light and blisse? What Christian heart recounting his aboundant goodnesse and fatherly rea∣dynesse with his owne stripes to heale vs, with his owne bloode to washe vs, with his owne death to quicken vs, will not bee resolued into prayers and teares, to yeelde all honour and adoration to him that doeth offer vs these treasures at and on his table?

Phi.

These bee goodly words to bleare mens eyes,* 1.1078 where in deede you de∣nie him to bee present eyther at, or on the Altar.

Theo.

Wee confesse him to bee there present with all his giftes and blessinges to him, that will be∣holde him with the eye of faith, and reach out the hand of his soule to appre∣hende him, in greater might and maiestie, than you doe, when you shroude him with your formes of breade and wine, and pale him rounde with a pixe as it were with a sepulchre. Mary locall dimension or inclusion with∣in the compasse of the host or chalice wee appoint him none: His trueth is annexed to the Sacramentes, and his power vnited to the creatures after a wonderfull and inspeakeable manner,* 1.1079 by the mighty working of the holy ghost, but yet wee must not direct his diuine honour and seruice to anie part of the Altar, or circumference of the visible creatures: wee must rather Lyft

vp our hearts as the faithfull were alwayes admonished in this sacrament,* 1.1080 and take heede that wee doe not basely bende our eyes on the bread or wine to seeke Christ in them, and vnderneath them, much lesse worshippe them in steede of him, which is the next way to dishonor him, and deifie them against the very rules and Principles of our faith.

Phi.

But S. Chrysostom saith, We adore him on the altar, as the Sages did in the manger:* 1.1081 and S. Nazianzene saith of his sister Gorgonia, she cal∣led on him which is worshipped on the Altar.

Theo.

What wordes soeuer Chrysostom and Nazianzene vse to expresse the place where Christ is serued and adored, yet this is euident, that they attribute adoration not to the visible element or sacrament but vnto Christ, who may well be saide to be worshipped on the Table or altar, for so much as there is the fruite, force and e••fect of his heauenly grace and trueth proposed vnto all, and from thence the prayers and thankes of all are offered vnto him by the religious heart and voice of the Pa∣stor that standeth at the Lordes table to bee the mouth of al, and yet you deale vntruely with both those fathers as you do almost with al the rest of the writers that passe your pen.

* 1.1082Chrysostomes wordes are, Tu non in praecepe id, sed in Altarivides. Thou seest (his bodie) not in a manger but on the Altar. Now betweene seeing & adoring there is good difference, if you bee not so blinde, that you can see no∣thing.

Phi.

He speaketh it to that ende, that we should adore it, as the Sages did when they found him in a manger.

Theo.

He hath some wordes tending to this ende, that we should adore the body of Christ, since the wicked and barba∣rous Magi did yeelde him that honour, but he ioyneth no such wordes togither as you cite: he saith not, we adore him on the altar, but let vs that be citizens of heauen, at least imitate those Barbarians.

Phi.

That is in adoring Christ.

Theo.

As if we doubted of that? But where is, on the altar, which you haue ad∣ded of your owne,* 1.1083 without your authors consent?

Phi.

He sayeth, thou seest him on the Altar.

Theo.

But neither with corpo∣rall eyes, nor vnder the formes of bread and wine. And that well appeareth in the very same place when he saith, Ascende igitur ad coeli portas, & tunc quod di∣cimus intueberis. Climbe vp to the gates of heauen, and then thou shalt see that which we now say. To which end he told them before that becomming Eagles in this life they must fly vppe to heauen it selfe or rather aboue the heauens. For where the carcas is (saith Christ) there wil the Eagles be. The Lordes body (is) the carkas in respect of the death (which hee suffered.) Eagles (Christ) calleth vs to shew vs that he must flie on high, which will come to this body, & euer mount vpward, & haue the eye of his mind most bright, to behold the sonne of righteousnes: He that teacheth you to ascend to the highest heauens there to adore Christ neuer ment you should adore the h••st in the Priestes handes in steede of Christ: and as hee neuer ment it, so he ne∣uer spake it, though you haue plaied some ligier de main to make his wordes sound to that sense.

Phi.

Nazianzenes sister called on him that (is) worshipped vpon the al∣tar.* 1.1084

Theo.

She did so: but when she made her prayers to Christ there was nei∣ther Priest by, nor pixe there, that you should dreame shee made her prayers to the host.* 1.1085 Nazianzene saith shee went to the Church 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the dark of the night, & kneeling close to y^• altar she did inuocate, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, him that is honoured thereon: not meaning the host, which at that instant was not on the Altar, but Christ who is truly said to be honoured on the altar or Table, because his mercies are there layde foorth in the mysteries, and the prayers and supplications of all the faythfull offered chiefely from that place vnto him, though hee sit in heauen according to the materiall substance of his humane bodie.

Phi.

He is honored on the Altar; that is say you the Altar is the place whence honour is giuen vnto him, what sleights you haue to auoyd the fathers?

Theo.

Haue you no worse to enforce them, and you shal do them lesse wrong than you doe. When the woman of Samaria sayd to Christ, * 1.1086 Our fathers worshipped (God) in this hill, did she meane that God was in the hill, or that the worshippe was there d••ne vnto him? When it was said to Moses, * 1.1087 Ye shal serue God vp∣on this mountaine: was that mountaine before hand allotted to God, or to his seruice? So Christ is honoured on earth,* 1.1088 though hee bee in heauen, because the earth is the place where hee is honored and serued. And yet wee doubt not but Christ himselfe is also present euen in the mysteries and on the Altar or Table of the Lorde, albeit not in that corporall and carnall manner which you conceiue. And therefore though the wordes cary a double sense, yet we admit them both, so you adore Chri••t and not the creatures of bread and wyne in his steed, which Nazianzene was farre from allowing, and his sister from doing.

For speaking in the same place of the mysticall elements,* 1.1089 which you woulde haue the people to adore as Christ, he saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. If any where (about her) she found part of the figures of the sacred body and blood which her hande had layd vp in stoare, watering that with teares (not adoring it with diuine worshippe) shee departed presently cured of her disease. That which you affirme to bee the real and natural flesh and blood of Christ, shee had about her, as many men and weomen vsed in the primatiue church to carie the same about them, and yet shee did not adore that which she had in her hand, but him that is serued and honored on the Altar or table of the Lord.

Phil.

You pare these places with certaine circumstances I know not how. But S. Denys the Apostles scholer,* 1.1090 made a solemne inuocation of the Sacrament af∣ter Consecration in these woordes: But thou, O diuine and most holy Sacra∣ment, shewe (thy selfe) plainely to vs, and brighten the eyes of our mynde with thy singular light that can not bee couered. You aske proofe for ado∣ration of the Sacrament, * 1.1091 wee shewe you where the Apostles scholer prayed to the blessed Sacrament in expresse woordes, and higher adoration than pray∣er there can bee none. What woulde you more?

Theo.

Wee woulde haue

you regard if not your consciences before God, yet your credites before men.

Phi.

Doe wee not so thinke you; when wee ioyne with Saint Pauls scholer, and teach the people to doe as hee did?

Theo.

O wicked and wilfull corrup∣tion!

Phi.

Corruption? Why? What? Wherein?

Theo.

The prayer which hee maketh to the sonne of God, you wrest to the corporall and externall crea∣tures.

Phi.

No sir, that shift will not serue. * 1.1092His woordes bee, But thou O di∣uine and most holy Sacrament, which hee spake (after consecration,) and yet you will not acknowledge them, you bee so furiously bent against the blessed Sacrament.

Theo.

* 1.1093After consecration whats that? Was hee at masse when hee made this prayer?

Phi.

Hee made this inuocation of the Sacrament after Consecration.

Theo.

Did ye euer read the woordes?

Phi.

Twenty times.

Theo.

Where was the host, when hee made this prayer?

Phi.

What can I tell? To the host he made it.

Theo.

Was he praying at the Altar, or writing in his studie when he vttered these wordes?

Phi.

What is that to vs?

Theo.

You say, hee prayed to the host, and that after Consecration: where hee good man was busie at his booke, and beseeching God to lighten his vnderstanding that hee might write the trueth.

Phi.

Wheresoeuer hee was, hee sayth, O thou diuine and most holy Sacrament.

Theo.

Did hee write in Latin or in Greeke?

Phi.

In Greeke. What then?

Theo.

The woorde Sacrament is not Greeke.

Phi.

No. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is the Greeke woorde: but that in Latin is the Sacrament.

Theo.

Graunt the Greeke woorde were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, are there no mysteries besides the Sacrament?

Philand.

Yeas. There are mysteries that are not the Sacrament.

Theoph.

You shall otherwise not only enlarge the limits of your masse to containe your seuen Sacramentes, but also multiplie the number of your seuen sacramentes, to seuen thousand times seuen. For al secrets and wonders in heauen, earth and hel, which passe the reach or knowledge of the naturall or regenerate man, bee mysteries.

Phi.

In deede a mysterie is a secrete, as well as a Sacrament.

Theo.

And that in euil things as well as in good. As a 1.1094the mysterie of iniquitie, b 1.1095the mysterie of the woman and beast, on which the whore of Babylon sate.

Phi.

All this is true.

Theo.

And as in euill, so in good thinges, Saint Paul sayth often, The my∣sterie of God and of Christ. As when hee signifieth to the Colossians his care for them to c 1.1096 know the mysterie of God euen the father, and of Christ, and so the d 1.1097 mysterie of fayth,e 1.1098 of the Gospel, f 1.1099 of Godlynes, and such like.

Phi.

Ue∣ry wel.

Theo.

As these be mysteries because they be secrets aboue our natural capacitie though reueiled vnto vs by God in his word, so is the nature of God a most incomprehensible mysterie, namely the mysterie of the blessed trinitie, which is neither expresseable in our words, nor conceiueable with our heartes.

Phi.

This we doubt not of.

Theo.

So is there the mysterie of Christes incar∣nation, of his death and passion, of his resurrection and ascension, and of a thousand such, which Christ calleth the g 1.1100 mysteries of the kingdome of God,

and Paul meaneth when he saith, Let a man so esteeme vs as the Ministers of Christ and disposers of Gods h 1.1101 mysteries. And for that cause the whole Gospel is called i 1.1102 a mysterie hid since the world began and from all ages, but nowe made manifest to his Saints.

Phi.

This is not to our purpose.

Theo.

I thinke it bee not: you haue vtter∣ly peruerted the wordes of Dionysius, (if that bee his worke, and those were his wordes which you alleage,) and nowe you are loth to see it.

Phi.

Conuince vs before you condemne vs.

Theo.

What other conuiction neede wee than your own conclusiō? Dionysius speaking to Christ saith, at lest as you suppose, Thou diuine and most holy mysterie, replenish the eyes of our soules with (thy) singular and vnextinguished light. You, because the word mysterie when it is applied to corporall and externall creatures doeth sometymes signifie a sacra∣ment, haue robbed Christ of his honor,* 1.1103 and giuen it to the element of bread, and slaundered that writer, whatsoeuer hee was, for an open Idolater like to your selues. Are not the people well holpe vp to trust such gamsters as you bee, that leade them to so daungerous impietie with such manifest im∣pudencie?

Phi.

Your railing vayne is come vpon you.

Theo.

And what vaine is come on you that will rather make a shipwracke of your owne and other mens salua∣tions, than you will seeme to relent from your errors?* 1.1104

Phi.

It is no error.

The.

It is an impious and haynous error: and you bolster it vp with as euill & wic∣ked meanes, that is by corrupting and forcing other mens writings to beare out your doings.

Phi.

Dionysius in that whole chapter treateth of nothing but of the Sacra∣ment.

Theo.

And the Sacrament consisting of two partes,* 1.1105 an earthly and an heauenly: the heauenly part of the sacrament is Christ. Why might hee not therefore make his prayer vnto Christ to direct his pen, before hee assayed to treat of those mysteries?

Phi.

So hee did, but yet intending to pray to Christ, hee speaketh to him in the Sacrament.

Theoph.

It is one thing to pray to the sacrament as you though falsely say S. Denys did, and an other thing to pray to him that is euery where present in that hee is God and hath a speciall kinde of operation by the power and grace of his flesh and blood in the sacred mysteries as hee is man vnited in the same person with God. And yet these wordes doe not import him to bee in the sacrament. Certainely Christs diuine and humane nature were most woonderfull mysteries before this Sacrament was ordayned: and all the wordes that your author vseth if they were,* 1.1106 as you cite them, are onely these, Thou diuine and most holy mysterie, which agree to Christ without any respect of the Sacrament, more properly and truly than to your host or chalice.

Philand.

Yet they may bee taken as spoken to the sacrament: and there∣fore wee did not peruert them, we did but preferre that construction before the other.

Theo.

That is, where diuine honour was giuen to christ, you deriue it from him to the host.

Phi.

Not from him, but finding him truely and corporal∣ly

present in the sacrament, there we honor him where we find him.

Theo.

Your doings we know: but Dionysius words haue no such sense.

Philand.

They may haue, and that sufficeth vs.

Theo.

But if by them you will prooue so great a matter as this is, which we nowe haue in hand: they must necessarily enforce your exposition and not indifferently beare an other as well as yours or rather better.

This answere might suffice, if Dionysius had vsed the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as you suppose he did: but now his text is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 But O most diuine and holy expiation (or Sacrifice) reueiling the enigmaticall couerings, which are figuratiuely adiacent vnto thee, bee opened clearly vnto vs: Or if any man like rather to haue it an Apostrophe,* 1.1107 to a thing lacking life, such as the learned are well acquainted with, and the Scriptures often vse: he may inter∣prete it neerer to the right signification of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and say, but O most diuine and sacred rite or institution, referring it to that manner and order of celebrating the Lords supper, which Christ first ordayned, and may properly be called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.* 1.1108 Howsoeuer it is euident hee maketh no inuocation of the host or chalice, nor speaketh to them, but, calleth them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, aenigmaticall vayles or integuments figuratiuely adherent or an∣nexed to the perfection of the mysteries.

Phi.

Runne you for refuge to the Rhetoritians?

Theo.

As though the scrip∣tures were not full of the like speaches? Ioshua sayd, Thou sunne stand stil in Gibeon, and thou moone in the valley of Aialon. And so the man of Iudah, O Altar, Altar, thus sayth the Lord, behold. And Esai him-selfe beganne his pro∣phesie with, Heare O heauens, and hearken O earth.

Phi.

Those were spea∣ches, not prayers; as this is.

Theoph.

They bee all imperatiue moodes, as well as this, and so is that saying of Dauid, Lyft vp your heades, ye gates, and bee yee lift vp, you euerlasting doores, and the king of glory shall come in; which yet is no prayer to the doores. The moode of it selfe is not precatiue ex∣cept the person bee such, as wee must not commaunde but onely intreate: and beeing vsed to thinges without life it sheweth the desire of our heart touching them, not any supplication vnto them. And therefore you doe not onely the di∣uines but also the Grammarians wrong, when you conclude an inuocation of the Sacrament out of Dionysius woordes, because the verbes bee imperatiue. For the woord 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 contayneth the whole action, institution, and celebrati∣on of the Lordes Supper,* 1.1109 yea the inwarde grace as well as the outwarde ele∣ments: and Dionysius might say to Christes ordinance 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, bee opened vnto vs, without inuocation of the host or Chalice, as well as Dauid sayde, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, be you lifted vp, to the gates: and yet made them no Gods.

Phi.

Yet by this place you see, Christ is couered with the formes of bread and wyne, as with garments, and that is woorde for worde our opinion.

Theo.

Adde 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, figuratiuely as your author doeth, and then both your reall pre∣sence is ouerthrowen, and the doctrine which wee teach clearely established.

For wee confesse that Christ worketh in vs, and presenteth himselfe vnto vs in these mysteries, as it were in certaine vayles and couerings. Which mystical∣ly by way of signification and spiritual operation containe and clothe his grace and truth: but not really nor by material or corporall inclusion, as you affirme:* 1.1110 and so himselfe expresseth his mynd in this very chapter, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The reuerent (or venerable) signes, by which Christ IS SIGNIFIED and emparted vnto vs, being set on the Altar: Christ is signified and receiued by these signes and figures, and to him, not to the sacrament spake Dionysius (if that were his worke,) but that Christ is locally or substancially closed within the formes of breade and wine, or that hee prayed to the host and Chalice, Dionysius hath no such sense nor wordes.

Phi.

To Christ hee spake, we doubt it not, mary when he was couered with signes and figures of bread and wyne.

Theo.

Signes and figures the aunci∣ent fathers doe not take for shewes and accidents as you doe, but for substantial and vsuall creatures, such as you may not adore.

Phi.

We say no.

Theo.

Of that anon: in the meane tyme, well you may thinke that had you beene in Dio∣nysius place you would haue prayed to the Sacrament, but his woords import no such matter.

Philand.

Why shoulde not hee as well as the rest of the godly?* 1.1111 The whole Church * 1.1112 crieth vpon it, Domine non sum dignus, Deus propitius esto mihi peccatori: Lambe of God, that takest away the sinnes of the world, haue mercie on vs.

Theo.

Whome meane you by the whole Church; your selues, or all the Godly since Christ?

Philand.

Neuer aske that question: they did as wee doe, and wee doe as they did.

Theo.

If you speake of your selues, then here is the witnes of your owne mouth, that you CRY VPON IT (I meane on your host which in sub∣stance is a base and corruptible creature,) O Lorde, O God, O Lambe of God that takest away the sinnes of the worlde, haue mercie on vs.* 1.1113 What greater sinne did they commit which sayde to a stocke, thou art my Father, and to a stone, thou hast begotten mee; whom the holy Ghost hath traduced for a me∣morable and yet detestable crewe of Idolaters?* 1.1114 Whether it is greater to bee a father, or to be a God? to beget, or to take away the sinnes of the world? They sayd the one, you say the other: who can forbid the banes but that you shoulde be coupled with them, if not preferred before them as more outragious in disho∣noring God than they were?

Phi.

Doe wee not this to Christ, and is hee not woorthie of it?

Theoph.

Why then doe you cry on it, and not on him?

Philand.

Wee be perswaded that when wee call on it, wee call on him.

Theo.

So were they that tooke a stocke for their father, and a stone for their maker. They thought they wor∣shipped God, and not the Image.

Philand.

But wee bee sure that Christ made this to bee him-selfe, when hee sayde, this is my body.

Theo.

He sayd, I am the doore, I am the vyne, and yet neither doore, nor vyne are really and personally the sonne of God.

Philand.

Hee spake those things in parables,

and by way of resemblance: this he spake in plaine trueth without all figures:* 1.1115 and therefore this must bee substantially turned into Christ, though that bee not.

Theoph.

You make your reall and corporall presence a refuge for your erroneous and absurde assertions: But if that bee false as well as the rest, then are you plunged ouer head and eares in the myre and sinke of sinne and heresie.

Phi.

If God bee not in heauen, wee shall neuer come there: but if hee bee, wee can not misse our way. For hath the whole Church thinke you lyen in sinne and heresie till your newe doctrine came lately from Geneua?

Theo.

In deede I thinke this reason is euen as good as the most of those which your friendes haue freshly sent vs from Rhemes; but abuse not your selues with such stately follies: GOD may well bee in heauen and is no doubt; and yet you neuer come there for refusing the right way thither.

Philand.

* 1.1116Wee goe the same way that the whole church since Christes time went before vs.

Theoph.

This pride so bewitcheth you, that you can not see howe farre you bee fallen from the fayth of Christes Church, which was in auncient and vncorrupted ages.

Philand.

As though wee did not ioyne with them in this and all other poyntes of Religion.

Theoph.

You ioyne with them as darke-night doeth with day-light.

Philand.

Haue wee not their full consent for those thinges which you impugne?

Theoph.

As namely for adoration of the sacrament, where you pretend the whole Church, and shewe not one man that euer taught of the Sacrament that It should bee adored.

Philand.

Was not the whole Church taught to say vnto It, and crie vpon It, Domine non suum dignus, Lorde I am not woorthie?

Theo.

Prooue that this or any other inuocation or adoration was vsed TO IT as you say: and you shall goe free for all.* 1.1117

Phi.

Origen, ho. 5. in diuers. When thou eatest, (sayth hee) and drinkest the body and blood of our Lorde, hee entereth vnder thy roofe. Thou also therefore humbling thy selfe say, Lord I am not woorthy. So sayde * 1.1118 S. Chrysostome in his Masse.

Theoph.

This they were taught to say, but to what were they taught to say it?

Philand.

To the Sacrament.

Theo.

Who sayth so besides you?

Phi.

Origen and Saint Chrysostome.

Theoph.

Perhaps they taught the people that kinde of prayer when they did communicate at the Lordes Ta∣ble: but did they teach the people to say so to the Sacrament?

Philand.

E∣uen thus to crie VPON IT, and thus to say VNTO IT, Lorde I am not woorthie.

Theo.

* 1.1119We would gladly heare that of their owne mouthes, wee trust not yours.

Philand.

Looke the places and you shall find it to bee as wee say.

Theo.

We haue viewed the places and find you to be Lyars.

Phi.

Are not those Ori∣gens words which we rehearse?

Theo.

Origen hath the words, which you cite, but he teacheth not the people to direct them to the Sacrament.

Philand.

To whome then?

Theoph.

To whome, but to christ the sonne of God?

Phi.

And he is in the sacrament.

Theo.

Their assertions, not your additions, are the thinges we aske for. That these and all other partes of diuine honor are due to christ, no christian maie doubt; but that the same maie be directed and applied to the host, that is your blasphemie, no father ••uer taught it.

Origen discussing the Centurions fact and faith telleth his audience that Christ entereth vnder the roofes of all beleeuers two waies;* 1.1120 first by his mini∣sters, then by his mysteries. Intrat & nunc Dominus sub tectum Credentium duplici figura vel more. The Lorde euen at this daie entereth the roofe of those that beleeue after two sortes or manners. For when holie and accep∣table pastours of the Church to GOD enter our howsen, euen then and there the Lord entereth by them, and be thou so affected, as if thou recei∣uedst the Lorde himselfe. An other waie is, when thou receiuest that holy meate,* 1.1121 and eatest and drinkest the bodie and blood of the Lord, for then the Lorde entereth thy roofe also. Thou therefore humbling thy selfe, i∣mitate the Centurion and saie: Lord I am not worthie, that thou shouldest come vnder my roofe.

This must be said, as well when the preacher entereth our house, as when we receiue the sacrament: for it is plaine by Origen that christ commeth vnder our roofe in both these cases,* 1.1122 and we are not worthie in either of them or in any other case, that the sonne of God should come vnder our roofe. As then it were madnes to deifie the Preacher, because Christ voutsafeth to come in him and with him, or to salute him with the diuine honour due to christ and to say to a mortall man, Lord I am not worthy: so can it be no lesse impietie to saie to the dead creatures in which or with which we receiue christ from his table, Lord I am not worthie.

Phi.

Doe you thinke that Christ is none otherwise in the Sacrament, than he is in a mortall man?

Theo.

He is more truelie, reallie and naturallie in those men that be his members than he is in the elements that be vsed at his ta∣ble.

Phi.

O shamefull heresie! Is anie mortall man transsubstantiated into Christ, as the elements are by power of consecration?

Theo.

That which I saie is most true; men are the members of Christ, bread is not: Christ abi∣deth in them and they in him, in the breade he doeth not: he will raise them in the last day, the breade he will not: they shall raigne with him for euer, the breade shall not. And therefore take backe your shamefull error of transsubstantiating the elements into christ, since he is more really in vs than in the pixe or the chalice, and yet we are not substantiallie conuerted into him.

Phi.

I will neuer beleeue this whiles I haue a daie to liue.

Theo.

Nei∣ther doe I meane in this place to enter that discourse: yet for the confirmation of it, I send you to Chrysostome, Cyrill, and Hilarie, who will teach you so much in plaine wordes, that christ is in vs reallie, naturallie, corporallie, carnallie, substantiallie, which of the Sacrament you shall neuer be able to prooue. For the sacrament is no part of his mysticall bodie, as we are, and

therefore we are knit vnto him euen by the trueth of his and our nature, flesh, and substance, as members of the same bodie to their head, the Sacrament is not, but onelie annexed as a signe to the heauenlie grace, and vertue of Christ mightilie present, and trulie entering the soule of euerie man that is fi••lie pre∣pared with faith and repentance to receiue and lodge so worthie a ghost.

Phil.

The Sacrament is turned into the reall and naturall flesh of Christ, and so are not we.

Theoph.

If that were true, when the Sacrament is turned by naturall digestion into the nourishment of our bodies, the flesh and blood of Christ must likewise be conuerted into the substance of our bodies:* 1.1123 but that is so blasphemous and impious that you dare not abide it; and there∣fore Christ entereth not our mouthes, when he commeth vnder our roofe, but possesseth our soules & replenisheth them with his heauenlie presence & power of grace and life: neither must we saie to the Sacrament, Lord I am not wor∣thie; since that is an earthlie and corruptible creature: but to Christ himselfe who hath promised in his Gospell that he and his * 1.1124father wil come and dwel with vs, and perfourmeth the same by the hearing of his worde, and receiuing of his Sacraments, by which meanes he commeth and * 1.1125 dwelleth in our harts by faith, as S. Paul affirmeth, and not in our mouthes or bellies by anie local and reall comprehension as you imagine.

Phi.

Wee doe not deny that Christ commeth by his worde vnto vs; but the Sacraments haue a speciall presence of his, which the worde hath not.

Theo.

The sacraments take their force onely and wholy from the worde, neither is the worde anie whit the stronger or better for the visible signes, but our weak∣nes is staied and supported by them and they endued with power and vertue by the worde to sanctifie the receiuer, where it is beleeued. And therefore Christ commeth and dwelleth in vs, as truely by his worde as by his sacraments, and if you compare them, more truely by his worde, than by the signes and seales of his worde.

Phi.

We eate his flesh and drink his blood in the sacrament, in the word we do not.

Theo.

* 1.1126We eate his flesh & drinke his blood more truely in the word, than in the Sacramental and mystical signes. S. Hierom saith, * 1.1127 Ego corpus Iesu E∣uangelium puto: & quando dicit, qui non commederit carnem meam, & biberit san∣guinem meum licet & in mysterio possit intelligi, tamen verius corpus Christi & san∣guis eius sermo Scripturarum est. The body of Iesus I think to be the Gospel, & when he saith, he that doth not eate my flesh and drinke my blood though this maie be vnderstood of the Sacrament,* 1.1128 yet the worde of the Scriptures is more truely the bodie and blood of Christ. S. Austen saith: * 1.1129 Beleeue and thou hast eaten: to beleeue in him, is to eate the liuelie bread: and that he calleth of the twaine the truer kinde of eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Christ. For repeating these woordes of our sauiour, he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, abideth in me and I in him, he saith, Ostendit quid sit non Sacramento tenus sed reuera co••pus Christi manducare. Christ shew∣eth what it is to eate his flesh, not by way of a Sacrament, but in deede,

(or truely.) So that the flesh and blood of Christ are MORE TRVELY in the members and words of Christ than in the Sacraments; and yet your selues teache no man to say to the Preacher, or the Scriptures, Lorde I am not woorthie.

Phi.

Chrysostome in his Masse sayde the very same woordes, to the Sa∣crament.

Theo.

Howe knowe you what hee sayde, that died so long before you?* 1.1130

Phi.

You shall find them in his Liturgie.

Theo.

Well we may hereafter, when you haue put them in; but as yet we find no such wordes at all in his Li∣turgie.

Phi.

The Greeke exemplar hath them.

Theo.

Not those which either Erasmus or Leo Thuscus had when they translated it into Latin: if you haue gotten new copies contrarie to the olde, reason is you publish them, and prooue the credits of them before we regard them.

Phi.

So we will.

Theo.

And with all you must shew that hee speaketh these wordes to the Sacrament: otherwise they conclude nothing for you,* 1.1131 no more than Origens words did in the like case, when he taught men to say them to Christ at the sacred communion.

Phi.

That is your euasion: for both Origen and S. Chrysostome sayde it to the Sacra∣ment.

Theo.

That is your intrusion: for neither Origen nor Chrysostom hath any such reference.

Phi.

See the bookes.

Theo.

Neuer appeale to the sight of the bookes, but produce the wordes. This is your cunning in your Rhemish Testament to bid vs often a 1.1132 (See) the fathers, and b 1.1133 (so the rest) but wee haue seene them, where you come in thickest with them, and there finde nothing for your false and erro∣neous fansies. And therefore either alleage their woordes, when you vse their names, or say you sawe them not: wee lyst not at your bidding to goe seeke for oysters in the Ocean.

Philand.

You feare to bee confounded by them, and that is the cause you will not (See) them.

Theoph.

They bee not our, but your allegations, and did they make for you, wee should soone haue tidings of you: mary nowe their woordes comming short of your assertions, to beare out the matter you send the reader to the names and workes of many Fathers, where hee must picke out what hee can at his fingers endes,* 1.1134 and in the meane time not bee able to charge you with corrupting them, since you bid him (See) them, but tolde him not what hee shoulde finde in them. This is a way to quote what authorities you list, bee they neuer so impertinent, and yet to amaze the simple with the number, and wearie the learned with not expressing what wordes you take hold of, and what they seeke for: which in questions of fayth were very needefull.

Phi.

They say wee tell you,* 1.1135 auoyde it how you can.

Theo.

They say no such thing: and though Origen, as you haue hearde bee farre enough from it, yet Chrysostom in the place which you cite is farther off, I meane, from direc∣ting his prayers to the sacrament.

Making his supplications to God after consecration, hee sayth, * 1.1136 Ipse Do∣mine caelitus respice ad seruos tuos inclinantes tibi capita sua. Thou Lorde looke from heauen on thy seruants that bowe their neckes vnto thee. And againe,

Attende Domine Iesu Christe Deus noster de sancto habitaculo tuo, & de throno gloriae regni tui,* 1.1137 & veni ad sanctificandum nos qui in excelsis vna cum patre sedes, & hic nobiscum inuisibiliter ades. Behold Lorde Iesu Christ, our God, FROM thy holy habitation,* 1.1138 and FROM the throne of the glory of thy kingdome, and come to sanctifie vs, who sittest in the heauens with thy father; and art here with vs inuisibly. Hee desireth the sonne of God to beholde his seruantes from heauen, not from the sacrament, and from thence hee looketh for sanctification, not from the patent or Chalice.

Phi.

Hee sayth that Christ is also present with vs here on earth, though af∣ter an inuisible manner, which wee take to bee vnder the formes of breade and wyne.

Theo.

That Christ is present with vs here on earth, wee firmely be∣leeue, to our great comfort. Where two or three, sayth our Sauiour, are gathered together in my name,* 1.1139 I am in the middest of them: and againe, Lo•• I am alway with you vntill the ende of the worlde: but that hee is corporally present vnder the formes of bread and wine, that is nei∣ther auouched by Chrysostome, nor admitted by vs; it is your vaine and fruitlesse fansie.* 1.1140

Phi.

How can his body bee present but bodily?

Theo.

These woordes of Chrysostom inferre not, that Christes body is present, but that Christ is pre∣sent. And since Christ consisteth of two natures, the diuine may bee present though the humane bee not. Christ absent, sayth Austen, is also present. For vn∣lesse hee were present,* 1.1141 hee coulde not bee helde of vs our selues. But because it is true that hee saith, Lo I am with you for euer vnto the end of the world, hee is both departed, and yet here. Hee is returned (whence hee came) and hath not yet forsaken vs.* 1.1142 For his body hee hath caried into heauen, but his (diuine) maiestie hee hath not taken from the world.

Neither is his diuine power onely present with vs, but also wee haue his humane nature many wayes with vs in this worlde.* 1.1143 Habes Christum in praesen∣ti & in futuro. In praesenti per fidem, in praesenti per signum Christi, in praesenti per Baptismatis Sacramentum,* 1.1144 in praesenti per altaris cibum & potum. Thou hast Christ, sayth Austen, in this worlde, and in the next. In this world by faith, in this worlde by the signe of Christ, in this world by the Sacrament of bap∣tisme, in this world by the meate and drinke of the altar. By these things wee haue him in this worlde not really, locally, or corporally, but truely, comfortably and effectually, so as our bodies, soules and spirites bee sanc∣ti••••ed and preserued by him against the day of redemption, when wee shall see him and enioye him face to face in that fulnesse and perfection which wee nowe are assured of by fayth, and prepared for by cleanesse and meekenesse of the inward man.

The whole Church therefore neuer * 1.1145 cried vppon the Sacrament, Lorde I am not woorthy, Lord beè mercifull to mee a sinner: Lambe of God that takest away the sinnes of the worlde haue mercy on vs: You doe sinnefully slaunder them, they did exactly and precisely distinguish the corruptible creature from the eternal crea∣tor,

and taught all men to lift vp their hearts from the elements, which were before their eyes, to him that is in heauen, and shall come from thence and from no place else to iudge the world.

Saint Austen wil haue the rude ones to be taught that the Sacraments, are a 1.1146Signacula rerum diuinar••m visibilia, sed res inuisibiles in eis honorari: Visible scales of things diuine, but the things visible to be honored in them. And as if the case were so plaine that no man could well doubt thereof, he saith, b 1.1147 Si ad ipsas res visibiles quibus Sacramenta tractantur, animum conferamus, quis nesciat eas esse corruptibiles? Si autem ad id quod per illas agitur, quis non videat, non posse corrumpi? If we looke to the visible things (or elements) by which the Sacraments are perfourmed, who can be ignorant that they are corruptible? But if we looke to that which is doone by them, who doth not see, that that can not bee corrupted? Saint Ambrose saith, c 1.1148 Venisti ad Altare, vidisti Sacramenta posita super Altare, & ipsam quidem miratus es creaturam. Ta∣men creatura solemnis & nota. Thou camest to the Altar and sawest the Sacra∣ments placed on the Altar and maruelledst at the very creature: yet is it an vsuall and knowen creature. Origen purposely creating what part of the Sacrament did sanctifie the receiuer, saith; d 1.1149 Ille cibus qui sanctificatur per verbum Dei & obsecrationem, iuxta id quod habet materiale in ventrem abit & in secessum eijcitur. Nec materia panis, sed super ••llum sermo est qui prodest non indigne Domino commedenti illum. Haec de typico Symbolicoque corpore. The meate which is sanctified (at the Lords table) by the word of God, and praier, as touching the materiall (partes) which it hath, goeth into the belly and so forth by the priuie: neither is the matter of bread it, that profiteth the worthy receiuer, but the worde rehearsed ouer it. This I speake of the typicall and figuratiue body.

For this cause the great Councell of Nice directed the whole Church to lift vp their vnderstanding aboue the breade and wine which they sawe;* 1.1150 and by faith to conceiue the lambe of God slaine for the sinnes of men and proposed and exhibited on the Lordes table in those mysteries. Their woordes bee e 1.1151 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Let vs not base∣lie bend our mindes on the bread and cup, that are set before our eyes (at the Lordes Supper) but lifting vp our thoughtes let vs by faith be∣holde * 1.1152 on (or in) the sacred table the Lambe of God taking awaie the sinne of the worlde. Which admonition the Church euer after obserued by crying vpon the people to lift vp their hartes, not to the Sacramentes which they saw, but from them to him that liued and raigned in heauen; whome they adored in equall degree with the father and the holie Ghost; and whome they behelde and touched with the eyes and handes of their faith, but not with their corporall limmes or senses.

f 1.1153 Quomodo in caelum mittam manum vt ibi sedentem teneam? Mitte fidem & tenuisti. Howe shall I sende vp my hande to heauen, to reach (Christ

sitting there? Sende thy fayth (sayth Austen) and THOV HOLDEST HIM (fast enough. g 1.1154 Fide Christus tangitur, fide Christus videtur: non corpore tangitur, non oculis comprehenditur. By fayth (sayth Ambrose) Christ is touched, by fayth Christ is seene: hee is not touched with our body, not viewed with our eyes. And therefore Chrysostome saith, h 1.1155 Hee must flie (not to the Sa∣crament, but) on hie that will come to this body: * 1.1156 euen to heauen it selfe, or rather aboue the heauens: for where the body is, there also (will) the Eagles (bee.)

Phi.

* 1.1157The councell of Nice sayth, The Lambe of God is on the sacred table: where then did they seeke him or made they prayers vnto him, but on the Altar?

Theo.

They lifted vp their heartes to him that sate in heauen, and from hea∣uen looke downe vppon them, and their prayers, before they could please God, were directed to the same place and person that their heartes were. You must therefore either fasten their hearts and faiths to the Sacrament, or suffer their prayers together with their affections to ascend to heauen i 1.1158 where Christ sit∣teth at the right hande of God, and k 1.1159 from whence we looke for (our) Saui∣our, euen the Lord Iesus Christ.

Phi.

All the places which are yet alleaged against you, you haue shyfted off, by referring the speaches to Christ him-selfe sitting in heauen, and as you say not in the sacrament: But Theodorets woordes are so cleare, that no shift will ••erue. Hee speaketh of the very mysticall signes and Sacraments which are seene with eyes, and touched with handes,* 1.1160 and of them hee sayth: Intelliguntur ea esse, quae facta sunt, & creduntur, & adorantur vt quae ill•• sint, quae creduntu••. The Sacraments, are vnderstood to be the things which they are made, & are beleeued and ADORED as being the same which they are beleeued.

Theo.

* 1.1161Onely Theodoret of all the fathers that euer mentioned adoration spake of the Sacrament it selfe. The rest direct their words to Christ raigning in glory, not to the host or Chalice in the Priestes hande. Hee in deede spea∣keth of the mysticall signes, which the rest did not.

Philand.

Then yet there is one Father for the adoration of the Sacrament: you sayde wee had none.

Theo.

Woulde you prooue so high a point of Religion, as this is, to bee Catholike by one onely Father, and such an one as you thinke not worthy to bee called a Saint?

Phi.

These exceptions are but dilatorie, and quite besides the matter.* 1.1162 Doe you graunt that hee sayth the mysticall signes must bee ado∣red?

Theo.

Hee sayth so.

Philand.

And such vpstarts as you are, woulde bee credited against him, when you say the Sacrament is not to bee adored.

Theoph.

Wee reason not about our credite, but about your conclusion.

Philand.

That is too plaine for your stoare.

Theo.

Why doe you then con∣ceale it so long?

Phi.

* 1.1163You shall soone heare it, and haue your belly full of it. The mystical to∣kens bee adored sayth that auncient Father Theodorete. Marke nowe howe nimbly we come within you, & ouerthrow you in plain field. If you deny it, we haue here antiquitie for it: If you grant it, then are you worse than miscreants

for holding all this while against it.

Theo.

With such weapons I thinke A∣lexander the great did conquere the worlde.

Phi.

When you come to a non plus, then you fall to idle talke. But leaue digressing, and giue vs a short and direct answere, which wee knowe for your heartes you can not.

Theo.

You knowe much; but if you knewe your selues and your owne weakenes it were better.

Phi.

Did I not tell you, this place would ouerthrowe you?

Theo.

Be∣cause hee sayth the substance of bread and wyne must be adored.

Phi.

Hee sayth no such thing;* 1.1164 but the mysticall tokens must be adored. And what are the mysticall tokens but the mysteries themselues, which are all one with the Sacrament?

Theo.

Can you take the top and the tayle, and leaue out the myddle so cunningly?

Phi.

Wee leaue out nothing.

Theo.

Theo∣dorets wordes are,* 1.1165 Neque enim sigra mystica post sanctificationem recedunt a sua natura. Manent en••m in priore substantia, & figura & forma: & videri & ta••gi possunt sicut & prius: Intelliguntur antem ea esse quae facta sunt, & credu••tur & a∣dorantur vt quae illa sint, quae creduntur. The mysticall signes after consecration doe not depart from their owne nature. For they remaine in their former substaunce, and figure and forme, and may bee seene and touched as they were before: but they are vnderstoode to bee those thinges which they are made, and are beleeued AND ADORED as being the things which they are beleeued.

The mysticall signes,* 1.1166 not departing from their owne nature but remay∣ning in their former substance are adored. By this you may prooue; if you bee so disposed, that the creatures of bread and wyne must bee adoren, which per∣haps in your Church is no fault, because it is so often: But the Church of Christ abhorreth it as a wicked impietie to adore any dead or dumbe creature. And therefore you must bee driuen as well as we, to seeke for an other, and far∣ther meaning in Theodorete: otherwise you will shake the foundation of your owne fayth with your owne antiquitie, more than you shall doe ours.

Our answere is easie.* 1.1167 The mysticall signes, hee sayth, are adored, but not with diuine honour: and adoration with the Grecians as also with the Scrip∣tures, when it is applied to mortal men or creatures, signifieth onely a reuerent regard of their places or vses.

Your owne Lawe sayth:* 1.1168 In hoc sensu possumus, quamlibet rem sacram adorare, id est reuerentiam exhibere. In this sense wee may adore any sacred thing whatsoeuer, that is giue it (due) reuerence. So that you vtterly ouerthrowe both your adoration and your Transubstantiation, when you brought Theo∣dorete to tell vs that the substance of bread is adored (that is reuerenced) and yet remayneth after Consecration. For if it remaine, what adore you but the substance of a dead creature?* 1.1169 And that if you doe, howe many steppes are you from open Idolatrie? Thus though wee crake not of our conquests as you doe, wee returne your authorities for adoring the sacrament as either impertinent or insufficient, & giue vs cause to consider that your worshipping it with diuine honour is no catholike or ancient veritie, but a pernicious and wicked noueltie.

Phil.

Is it wickednes to worship Christ?

Theop.

You defile the name of Christ,* 1.1170 & spoile him of his worship, by giuing them both to senseles creatures.

Phi.

How often shall we beate this into your dull heades, that we giue this honour to the Sacrament, and not to senseles creatures?

Theo.

And howe often shall wee ring this into your deaffe eares,* 1.1171 that the Sacrament in corpo∣rall matter and substance is a senseles and corruptible creature?

Phi.

Did not Christ saie this is my bodie?

Theo.

You must prooue the speach to be literall, as well as the wordes to be his.

Phi.

Is not the letter plaine, this is my bodie?

Theo.

The letter is so plaine, that it killeth the carnall inter∣preter; and hath driuen you whiles you would needs refuse the figuratiue and spirituall constructions of Christs words, to these absurdities and enormities, which haue euen ouerwhelmed your Church.

Phi.

* 1.1172Can you wish for plainer wordes than these, this is my bodie?

Theo.

I could wish that in expounding these wordes you did relie rather on the catho∣like fathers, than on your vncatholike fansies.

Phi.

All the fathers with one voice toyne with vs in this doctrine.

Theoph.

You doe but dreame of a drie Summer. Not one of the auncient fathers euer spake of your reall presence, or the literall sense of these wordes, on which you buyld the rest.

Phi.

Will you haue a thousand places for that purpose; or if varietie of writers do rather content you, wil you haue three, or four hundreth seuerall fathers, all auncient and catholike in diuers ages and countries that shall depose for our doctrine in this point?

Theo.

I can enter a course to saue you paines, and to make a readier dispatch if you will be ruled by me.

Phi.

What is it?

Theo.

Bring vs but one father for 800. yeares that euer taught your transsubstantiation, and wee will count it catholike.

Phi.

What talke you of one? You shall haue one hundreth of as auncient and catholike writers, as anie were in the Church of christ for a thousand yeares after his ascending to heauen.

Theo.

You were best take it, when you be wel offered. One faire and sufficient authority shall please vs better, than a cartloade of names abused, and places peruerted.

Phi.

It is as easie for vs to bring them by whole hundreds. A man that once supplied the same roome which you doe nowe,* 1.1173 hath produced two hun∣dreth of them in his Diacosion Martyrion: Vernierus, an other of our side, hath alledged 318. seuerall and sundrie writers: as manie as there were Bi∣shops in the great Councell of Nice: Garetius, a man of singular reading hath gathered foure hundred fourtie fiue good and substantiall Authors, euen from Melchizedech, to this present age, besides Poets, women, Councels, Mira∣cles, visions, Iewes, Ethnicks, and heretiks, which all beare witnes to our doctrine. And if you haue not seene the bookes, I will lend you them for your instruction: I could be content I tell you to be at anie cost to win a soul, and wish to you no worse than to my selfe.

Theo.

Your kindnes without cause, is but seruice without thankes. I haue seene your Diacosion Martyrion, your great & vniuersal Councell militant tou∣ching the truth of the most diuine sacrament of the Eucharist assembled by Vernierus & your nine orders & Rancks of I know not whom, digested by Garetius: besides

the labours & trauels of many others your adherents:* 1.1174 And reading them all, I find not one father that euer dreampt of your material & corporal conuersion of the elements into christ for 800. yeres & vpward. Hyperbolical speaches I find in Chrysostom, & some hard similitudes in damascene & others: but a manifest testimonie for the real & carnal presence, which you defend, I find none: and as for the fathers which be any thing ancient they go clearely and exactly with vs in this question.

Phi.

With you? By this a man may perceiue you neuer saw them, or at lest neuer read them. My selfe can alleage you 500. places, wherof you shall not an∣swere one,* 1.1175 but by meere shifts & iestes & of tropes and figures and such like moc∣keries.

Theo.

It were paynes better bestowed for you to vnderstand what you alleage, than to alleage that which you vnderstand not. You may wrest and mis∣use 500. places of y^e fathers, as your friends before you haue done, in this point, & your selues in other questiōs haue shewed the like actiuitie. But that the sub∣stance of the bread vanished by consecratiō, & the substāce of Christs body real∣ly succeedeth vnder the same dimensions & accidents of bread & wine, & entereth our mouthes locally cōprised within those formes; for this you shal neuer shew vs any one father greeke or latin, within the compas of 800. yeres after Christ.

Phi.

A thousand authorities can we bring you with a wette finger that shall clearly conuince the presence of Christ in the sacrament.

Theo.

And not one of them shal conclude that maner of presence which you maintain.* 1.1176

Phi.

As for the maner of his being there, it forceth not much, so you grant him to be really and verily present.

Theo.

His presence there can do you litle good, except the man∣ner of his presence be likewise expressed and auouched by the places which you would bring.

Phi.

If he be present, ergo the substance of his flesh is present: and that must needs be corporally & locally cōprised in the formes of bread & wine.

Theo.

What father saith so besides your selues?

Phi.

They al say, he is presēt.

Theo.

And so do we.

Phi.

In words you say it, but when you come to the push, you deny the truth and effect of his presence.* 1.1177

Theo.

Wee do not looke you should vnderstand vs that vnderstand not your selues. You haue framed of your own heades a certaine maner of Christes pre∣sence in the supper without the direction or consent of any learned or auncient father: and that of al others the grossest and absurdest that could be deuised: and nowe you no sooner heare the name of Christes body or blood in the mysteries,* 1.1178 but you straightway grow to a speciall conceite, that your reall and carnall presence is there confirmed and confessed. And this made your builders of Ba∣bel, as they posted through the Fathers, to note euery place and person, that did but mention The body of Christ as a witnes for Transubstantiation: where if it woulde haue pleased you and your fellowes to haue weighed the rules and cautions of the fathers together with their speaches and exhortatiōs & not to haue hunted after your owne fansies in their phrases, but marked & re∣mēbred their instructiōs, how they would be takē & vnderstood, whē they speak of y^e christiā mysteries, you should haue saued a great deale of labor, which now

you should haue saued a great deale of labour, which nowe you haue spent to no purpose, & gained securitie from this difficultie, which hath s••tted your schooles and churches with a most pernicious and yet a monsterous error.

Phi.

And wee say that you bee so blinded with presumption and rebellion a∣gainst the Church of God, that you will not yeelde to all the fathers that euer wrate of this matter since Christes time, but because they nowe and then speake of signes and figures, you * 1.1179 turne all to tropes and metaphores, as if neither Christ himselfe, nor any of his Apostles, or their successors, the Godly teachers and Pastours of his church had euer spoken properly or plainely of this sacra∣ment, but al in clouds and riddles, such as neither Priest nor people, that should come after, could possibly conceiue, and none to this day had vnderstood, till you came lately to trouble the world with heresie and in••quitie.

Theo.

Take your pleasures, your tongues bee your owne, who can tame them if you will not containe them? You haue learned of your fathers to a 1.1180whet them like swordes, and to b 1.1181 smite with them: and to shoote foorth your ar∣rowes, euen, bitter wordes; but the mouth that rageth with lies (& slanders) as the wise man forwarneth, destroyeth the soule; and in the meane time your errors are nothing diminished or excused by your taunts or teeth-gawles.

As touching the matter it selfe, Sacraments of their owne nature, and by their first and chiefe erection are visible signes of inuisible graces; so that if they be no signes, they bee no sacraments: and though the signes must bee dili∣gently distinguished from the thinges, yet for good causes in teaching and wri∣ting do the signes beare the names of the things them selues,* 1.1182 whose signes they are, in so much that no father speaking or writing of the bread or wyne after they be once made sacraments, giueth them any other name, than the body and blood of Christ; not that in earthly matter or essence they be really conuerted in∣to those diuine things, as you falsely gather, but for that remaining in their for∣mer & vsual both nature and substance, they haue in them, & cary with them the fruite, effect, and force of Christs flesh wounded, & blood shed for the remission of our sinnes. And because the people shoulde regarde not the creatures which they see, but the graces which they beleeue, therefore the Fathers euery where without exception call the elements by the names of the inwarde and heauenly vertues, that are annexed to them, and conferred with them by the trueth of his word, & power of his spirit. This is y^e first rule, which you should haue obserued.

* 1.1183The next is that whensoeuer they teach and propose the dignitie, proprie∣tie or efficacie of the Sacrament, they meane not the creatures, which our eies and tasts doe better iudge of, than their tongues or wittes can teach vs, but that other diuine, lyfe-giuing and soule-sauing part of the sacrament, which our heartes by fayth take holde on, and possesse more really and effectual∣ly, than if it were chammed in our mouthes, or buried in our stomackes, as you grossely conceiue of those thinges which bee most high and heauenly. These two Rules remembred, a very meane scholer may soone discharge the burden of all your allegations. For either you mistake the one part for

the other,* 1.1184 supposing that to bee corporall which in deede is spirituall: or else you vrge the name which the signe beareth for similitude, as ••arn••stily to all in∣tents as 〈◊〉〈◊〉 were were the thing it selfe, which causeth you to 〈◊〉〈◊〉 so many tex••es, and to straie so farre from trueth, that no sound can recall you.

Phi.

Away with your new found obseruations: The catholike church hath the spirit of trueth promised for her direction, and therefore the wil none of your wise inuentions to qualifie the fathers speeches. Learne you rather at her handes to beleeue the wordes of Christ,* 1.1185 who first appointed this Sacrament, and pronounced it to be himselfe, without signe or figure, when he saide, this is my body, and this is my blood, not spirituall or metaphoricall, but the same body, which was broken, and the same blood which was shed for remissio•• of sinnes: and that I trust you will confesse was his naturall, and locall, hath body and blood.

Theo.

The question is not,* 1.1186 whether that were his naturall body, which suf∣fered on the crosse, but when hee saide of the bread, this is my bodie, whether he substantially changed the dead element into himselfe, & made the creature be∣come the creator, or whether he annexed his trueth to the signe, and grace to the Sacrament which required both the word of Christ, to make the promise: and his power, to perfourme the speech. And therefore we beleeue and acknow∣ledge the wordes of our Sauiour to bee very needeful in ordaining this Sa∣crament, euen in such manner and order as they were spoken: that the signes might haue the fruites and effectes of his body and blood: But that hee chaun∣ged substances with the bread and wine or deified the creatures, that his speech doth not inferre: and that as yet we doe not beleeue, except you can shewe vs howe the fleshe of Christ, which was first made of a woman, is nowe be∣come to be made of bread, and a dead and senslesse creature exalted to bee the son of God.

Phi.

We do not say the bread is substantially conuerted into Christ,* 1.1187 or made the sonne of God: but the bread is abolished, & in the place thereof commeth the glorious flesh of our Lord and Sauiour, who is the Sonne of God. And in that sense we hold the creator is now where the creature was: but the dead element is not made the Sonne of God: you woulde faine catch vs at such an ad∣uantage.

Theo.

How you can auoide it,* 1.1188 I yet perceiue not: for if the bread bee nowe Christ, which before it was not, ergo the bread is made Christ, and by conse∣quent a dead element is nowe become or made the Sonne of God, which I thinke will hardly stand with the very first groundes of Christian religion.

Phi.

You presse the letter against both reason and trueth. For the one is sayd to be conuerted or chaunged into the other, because the one displaceth and suc∣ceedeth the other: & so is it a chaunge rather of the one for the other, than a con∣uersion of the one into the other: if you take conuersion properly, as the Philo∣sophers do.

Theo.

Christ d••eth not say, where the bread was, there is nowe my body, but this (bread) is my body . And since before consecration it was

not his body, and now by repeating the wordes, is become his body: the conclu∣sion is euident, that by your opinion the bread is made Christ, and so become the sonne of God.

Phi.

You thinke to snare vs with schoole-trickes: but setting your sophismes aside, we plainly beleeue the Sacrament is Christ.

Theo.

You must beleeue the bread is Christ, which as yet the Articles of our Creede will not suffer vs to doe,* 1.1189 I meane, not to thinke that a dead and dumbe creature may bee God.

Phi.

Do we say the bread is God?

Theo.

You must auerre it, if you stick to the letter of Christs words, for he said of the bread, as you inforce it, this is my selfe: now, he was God.

Phi.

I thought I should be euen with you at Landes end. Christ did not say this bread is my bodie,* 1.1190 but this is my bodie, where now is the force of your ar∣gument?

Theo.

Euen where it was.

Phi.

Why? Christ sayd, this is, not mea∣ning bread, or any other creature.

Theo.

That this must be somwhat, else no∣thing was the body of Christ, & so you loose not only the bread, but also the body,

Phi.

Nay he said, this is, and that must needs be somwhat, it can not be nothing.

Theo.

It is well you haue found it. I said so before you. Then this is my bo∣dy. What this? Was it bread that he spake of: or somthing else?

Phi.

He spake of that,* 1.1191 which he had in his hands.

Theo.

You meane, not long before.

Phi.

In deede you say he had at that present, when he spake the wordes, nothing in his handes, and so you would haue nothing to be his body.

Theo.

Hinder not our course with matter impertinent to this place. The de∣monstratiue THIS noteth that which Christ then gaue to his Disciples, as wel as that which (you thinke) he then held in his hands. Choose whether you wil, of force the thing must be all one. For that which hee helde, that he gaue, and of that which he first helde and after gaue,* 1.1192 hee saide, this is my body.

Phi.

He did so.

Theo.

What was it?

Phi.

Somwhat it was, whatsoeuer it was.

Theo.

What somwhat do you say it was?

Phi.

What if I cannot tell?

Theo.

Then must you seeke farther for your chaunging of substances: The words of Christ, if you know not whereof he spake, proue no conuersion of the bread into his bo∣dy. For vnlesse THIS be taken to import the bread, the bread by those wordes can not be changed: and if not by these, then surely by none.

Phi.

I see your drift: you fet about to force me to confesse that by the strict coherence of our Sauiours wordes * 1.1193 the bread is Christ: & since that propositiō in precise speech is vntrue, you would come in with your figures.

Theo.

And your drift is as open, that hauing deuised a reall and carnall presence to your selues by colour of Christes wordes, and perceiuing the same to bee no way con∣sequent to the letter, which you pretend: least you shoulde bee disproued to your faces, you will not admit the perfect and plaine context of Christes wordes: but stand houering about other sophisticall illusions, which will not helpe you. For we haue the ful confession of scriptures & fathers against you, that the pronoune (THIS) in Christes words must bee restrained to the bread and to nothing else.

The Lord tooke breade, and when hee had giuen thankes he brake (no

doubt the bread that he tooke) and gaue to the Disciples (the selfesame that he brake) saying,* 1.1194 take ye, eate ye (this that I giue you) This is my bodie. What THIS could our Sauiour mean, but, THIS that he gaue, THIS that he brake, THIS that he tooke, which by the witnesse of the Scripture it selfe was bread? If you suppose that he tooke bread, but brake it not: or brake it, but gaue it not: or gaue it his Disciples to eate, but told them not this, which he gaue them, but some other thing besides that was his body, you make the Lords supper a merry iest,* 1.1195 where the later end starteth from the beginning and the middle from the both. The pronoune THIS of it selfe inferreth nothing, and therefore except you name the bread which Christ pointed vnto, when he spake these wordes, you cō∣firme not the faithes, but amase the wits of your followers.

S. Paul proposing the Lordes Supper to the church of Corinth expresseth that very word which we say the circumstances of the Gospel import. As a 1.1196 often as ye shall eate (saith he) This bread, and drinke this cuppe, you shew foorth the Lords death till he come. The b 1.1197 bread, which he brake, is it not the com∣munion of Christs body?a 1.1198 Let a man examine himselfe, and so let him eate of that bread and drinke of that cup: for whosoeuer shall eat this breade and drinke the cup of the Lord vnworthily shal be guilty of the body & blood of the Lord.* 1.1199 So that as wel by the coherēce of the former words in the description of the Lords supper, as by the manifest adiectiō which S. Paul putteth to the de∣mōstratiue, we conclude our sauior pronoūced of the bread, that it was his body.

The referring of THIS to the bread all the catholik fathers that euer wrate with pen in the church of God, acknowledge with one consent. Iustinus, c 1.1200Wee be taught, that the sanctified foode (which nourisheth our fleshe and our blood) is the fleshe and blood of that Iesu. Tertullian, d 1.1201 So Christ taught vs, calling bread his bodie, and discussing the wordes of the supper, e 1.1202Why, saith he, doth (Christ there) call bread his bodie? Austen, f 1.1203That which your faith requireth to be taught, the bread is the body of Christ, and the cup his blood. Cyprian, g 1.1204 Our Lord at his table gaue (to the Disciples) with his own handes bread and wine: on the crosse hee yeelded his body to the souldiers handes to be wounded, that (his Apostles) might teach (all) Nations) how bread and wine were (his) flesh and blood. Ireneus,h 1.1205 How shall it appeare to them that the bread (on which they giue thankes) is the body of their Lord, and the cup his blood, if they graunt not Christ to be the sonne of the creator of the world? i 1.1206How did the Lord rightly, if an other were his father, taking bread of this condition, that is vsuall amongst vs, confesse it to bee his body? Hierom, k 1.1207Let vs learn that the bread which the Lord brake & gaue to his disciples, is the Lords body, himself saying to thē, take ye, eate ye, this is my body. Athan. or at lest the cōmentary that is extāt in his name, l 1.1208What is the bread? the body of Christ. Epiphan. m 1.1209Of that which is round in figure & sens∣les in power, the Lord would say by grace, this is my (body.) Cyrill, n 1.1210Christ thus auoucheth and saith of the bread, this is my body. Theodorete, o 1.1211In the verie giuing of the misteries, he called bread his body.

* 1.1212And of all others your selues may not shrink from this resolution of Christs wordes: the surest holde of your reall presence, though it bee not much, stan∣deth onely on this settle. For what wordes haue you besides th••se, to proue that the breade is chaunged from his former substaunce? Uerily none. Then if in these wordes, which should worke the change, there be no mention at all of bread: how can that, which is no way comprised in them, bee chaunged by them? So miraculous a change can not be wrought by silence, but rather (if a∣ny such be) by the power of Christes words, and in those words must the thing at least be named, that shall be changed. Againe the demonstratiue THIS must needes note that which was there present on the Lordes table, before the words of consecration were wholy repeated: and the flesh of Christ coulde not be pre∣sent vnder the likenesse of bread without or before Consecration: ergo the pro∣noune inferreth not Christ, but the bread, which by your owne positions is not abolished, but p 1.1213 in vltimo instanti prolationis verborū, in the very last end & in∣stant of vttering these wordes. And therefore remaine in his owne nature whē the first word was pronounced.

Which some not the meanest men of your side foresaw very well howsoeuer you since haue taken other counsel, and therefore they say: q 1.1214 Dicendum est, quod hoc demonstrat substantiam panis, We must behold, saith Gerson, that the pro∣noune THIS, doeth demonstrate the substaunce of bread: and Steuen Gardiner: r 1.1215 Christus ait euidenter hoc est corpus meum demonstrans panem: Christ sayeth plainly this is my body, pointing to the bread. Notwithstan∣ding afterward he changed his minde in this, as in many other thinges & came to s 1.1216 Indiuiduum vagum: as if Christ had saide THIS (what is it, I can not tell, but it must needes be somwhat) is my body.

Occam and other profound fellowes of your side bethinking themselues how your opinion might best agree with the wordes of Christ, say the pronoune THIS must be referred to the t 1.1217 bodie of Christ: as if our Sauiour had said, this (my body) is my body. To make all cocksure, the coronell of your schol∣men, I meane the gloze resolueth the doubt on this wife: u 1.1218 Solet quaeri quid de∣monstretur per pronomen hoc, It is a common question what is ment by the pronoune THIS: whether bread, or the body of Christ? Not bread, for that is not the body of Christ: nor yet the body of Christ, for it appeareth not, that there is any transubstantiation, till the wordes be all pronounced. To this demaund I say that by the word THIS, * 1.1219 nothing is ment, but it is there put materially (without anie signification at all.) Thus you turned and tos∣sed the wordes of Christ so long till you brought all that the Lord did and saide at his last supper to plaine NOTHING. With such vnchristian toyes were your scholes fraughted,* 1.1220 and the worlde deceiued: such monsters you hatched when once you left the direction of the Scriptures and Fathers, and fell to broaching your owne gesses. But you must either admit our explication (this breade is my body) for the right ordering and perfitting of Christes wordes, or else dis∣sent from the manifest Scriptures, from al the catholike Fathers, and with

shame enough from your owne fellowes and fansies.

Phi.

Wee sticke not so much at the filling vp of the wordes which Christ spake, as at the constering and expounding of them. You delude them with tropes and significations,* 1.1221 as if Christ had beene speaking parables, and not ordaining sacramentes. Wee say there must be a reall truth and actiue force in them to perfourme the letter as it lieth. For in Scripture so long as the letter may possibly be true, we may not fly to figures.

Theo.

In that you say right. We must imbrace the sense which is occurant in the letter before all others, if it agree with faith and good maners: but if it crosse either of them, we must be∣ware the letter, lest it kill: and seeke for an other and deeper sense which must needes be figuratiue. That direction S. Augustine giueth to al men, when they read the Scriptures. * 1.1222 Iste omnino modus est (locutionis inueniendae propriá∣ne an figurata sit) vt quicquid in sermone diuino neque ad morum honestatem, nec ad fidei veritatem proprie referri potest, figuratum esse cognoscas. This is the perfect way (to discerne whether a speech be proper or figuratiue) that whatsoe∣uer in the word of God can not be properly referred either to integritie of maners or verity of faith, thou resolue thy selfe, it is figuratiue.

Phi.

That prescription is very sound: but it furthereth not your figuratiue sense. For the letter of these wordes, which we stand for, is neither against faith nor good manners.

Theo.

The literall acception of these words as they lie, this (bread) is my body, is first impossible by your owne confession, next blasphemous by the plaine leuell of our Creede, and lastly barbarous by the ve∣rie touch and instinct of mans nature.

Phi.

Charge you Christ with so manie foule ouersightes in speaking the wordes?

Theo.

The wordes which Christ spake, be gratious and religious we know: but where there may be brought a double construction of them, a carnall or a spirituall: a literall or a Sacramē∣tall, the literall construction, which you will needes defend to deface the other, is we say reproued as no part of our Sauiours meaning, by those three barres which we proposed.

Phi.

You propose much, but you proue litle.

Theo.

I should proue euen as much as you do, if I should proue nothing: but that which I proposed, shall not want proofe.

The first your owne friendes will helpe me to proue. Your Lawe saieth, z 1.1223Hoc tamen est impossible, quod panis sit corpus Christi: Yet this is impossible, that bread should be the body of Christ. Why striue you then for that which your selues grant is not possible to be true? Why forsake you the mysticall inter∣pretation which is possible? what greater vanitie can you shewe than to cleaue to that sense, which you see can not stande? If it be bread, how can it be Christ? If it be Christ, how can it be bread?

The second is as cleare. For if breade in proper and precise speech bee the flesh of Christ, ergo bread is also the feede of Dauid: ergo breade was fastned to the crosse for our sinnes: ergo bread was buried, rose the third day from death, and now sitteth in heauen at the right hand of God the Father: nay, no questiō, if bread be Christ, then is bread the Sonne of God, and second person in the

sacred Trinitie: which how wel your stomaks can digest we know not, in truth our harts tremble to heare an earthly, dead, and corruptible creature, by your literall & carnall deuotion, aduaunced to the Lord of life & grace, the maker of heauen and earth, yea the liuing and euerlasting God: and yet if bread be truely and properly Christ, these monsterous impieties you can not auoide.

Thirdly what could you deuise more iniurious and odious to christian mild∣nesse & maners,* 1.1224 than the letter of these words: eate you (this is) my flesh, drinke you (this is) my blood. Had you bin willed in as plain termes to cruci••ie Christ, as you bee willed to eate his fleshe, you woulde not I trust haue presently ban∣ded your selues with the Iewes to put him to death, but rather haue staggered at the letter, and sought for some farther and other meaning: Yee be now wil∣led to eate his flesh & drinke his blood which is a precept far more hainous & horrible in christian behauiour and religion, if you follow the letter: as Austē affirmeth. a 1.1225It appeareth more horrible to eate mans flesh than to kill it, to drinke mans blood than to shed it. And againe, (The Capernites) b 1.1226were more excusable, that coulde not abide the wordes of Christ, which they vnder∣stood not, being (in deede) horrible (in that they were spoken) as a bles∣sing, not as a cursing: c 1.1227They thought, saith Cyrill, Christ had inuited them to eate the raw flesh of a man, and drinke blood, which thinges be horrible to the verie eares. Why then presse you the letter, which is hainous, & for∣get that the speech can not be religious except it be figuratiue?

Uerily S. Austen concludeth the speech to be figuratiue for this only reason. d 1.1228If the scripture seeme to cōmand any vile or ill fact, the speech is figuratiue. Except ye eate the fleshe of the son of man, and drinke his blood, you shall haue no life in you: facinus velflagitium videtur iubere, Christ seemeth to com∣mand a wicked & sinfull act: figura est ergo, It is therefore a figuratiue speech, commanding vs to be partakers of the Lords passion & sweetly & profitably to keep in mind that his flesh was crucified & woūded for vs. If then the real eating of Christs flesh with our mouthes, and actuall drinking of his blood with our lips be wicked and hainous, why presse you the letter of these wordes eate you, this is my body: drinke you, this is my blood, against truth, against faith, against nature, neither possibility, nor christianity, nor cōmon honestie suffering your exposition to be good, & S. Austen in plaine termes concluding, It is ther∣fore a figure of speech.

Phi.

Sir, you bee misconstered all this while. The verbe, which coupleth both partes of the proposition togither,* 1.1229 doeth not here signifie this to bee simply that, but this to be really changed in that, as if our Lord had said, THIS (breade) is (now become) my body, that is substantially changed into my body.

Theo.

Sir you shuffle the words of Christ to serue your dreames, & yet you scape not the rockes which you thought to shunne. If the bread must be changed in substance, that is become no bread, afore it be the body of Christ, ergo breade is not the body of Christ, and so your construction is a plaine contradiction to the letter which you would interprete. For Christ said, this (bread) is my

body: that cannot be true, say you, vnlesse the bread loose first his substance, and cea••e in deede to be breade: and so where Christ saide (this) bread is my body, you expound his wordes in this sort, that it must first be no bread, afore it can be his body.

Besides in absurdity there is no difference whether you say,* 1.1230 bead is Christ, or bread is made Christ, & changed into Christ. For that which is made Christ, without all question, is Christ: & so the same blasphemies are consequent to this exposition, that were dependant on the former.

Phi.

Well, yet the bread may be abolished, and Christs body succeede in the place where the bread was, without any of these inconueniences.

Theo.

Thither are you faine to flie, when you be hardly pressed with the sequeles of the literall sense:* 1.1231 but in the meane time you forget that you be cleane gone from the wordes of Christ, which you pretended to folow. He said this is my body, you, to expoūd his speach say THIS must first vanish away and then my body shall succeede in the same place, and be couered with the same accidents, though THIS neither in shew, nor substance,* 1.1232 be my body.

Phi.

This is sophistry, which the catholike fathers were neuer acquainted with.

Theo.

If it be any, it is yours & not ours: you first forsooke the exposition of Christs words which the learned and godly fathers with one accord witnessed & & deliuered: & then stūbling at the letter, you hatched your carnal & local presence against Scriptures and fathers: and when the wordes of Christ would not sit your fansies, you racked & wrenched them til you brought both them to nothing, and your selues to a maze, that you knew not what you said: where as if you had continued their interpretation, you had cleared the wordes of Christ from all perplexities, inioyed the fruites of the Lords table without perill of Idolatrie or impietie, eased your selues of those absurdities, which you be now plunged in vp hard to the eares.

Phi.

What interpretation meane you?

Theo.

That which the Fathers ge∣nerally beleeued & publikly taught in the church of Christ.

Phi.

And what expo∣sition was that,* 1.1233 but the same which we now vrge, & you resist?

The.

Shew but one ancient father that euer affirmed the wordes of Christ, at his last Supper were properly spoken, or literally to be taken, and wee will receiue your sense.

Phi.

What? you will not?

Theo.

What neede you repeate it, when you heare vs offer it?

Phi.

Not a father, that euer auouched these words of Christ, this is my body, to be properly spoken, or literally taken?

Theo.

Not a father, that is ancient.

Phi.

How would you lie, if you might be let alone? I can name you pre∣sently a good number of them that in exquisite termes shal affirme the words of Christ to be literall.* 1.1234

Theo.

Shal they be auncient?

Phi.

I can not tel what you mean by auncient, you would haue them belike before Christ was borne.

Theo.

As though there were not difference both in the ages and credites of those wri∣ters, that haue gone before vs in the church of Christ.

Phi.

They shall bee auncient.

Theo.

Damascene perhaps & Theophilact.

Phi.

Yea Epiphanius, Euthymius and many others.

The.

Many others: is a note

aboue ela: These foure affirme that Christ did not say, this is the image or fi∣gure of my body: but this is my body: which we confesse was needefull for the first ordayner and institutor of the Sacrament to say: Mary by those wordes our Sauiour did not meane to abolish the substance of breade, or wine, but to * 1.1235vnite the force and fruite of his flesh crucified, and blood shed for our sinnes, to the elementes, that receiuing the one, we might through faith, bee partakers of the other, by the working of his spirite, and power of the word which he then spake: much lesse did these later writers (the eldest of them being more thā 700 yeres after Christ) intend to gainesay the fathers that were before them of grea∣ter iudgement and deeper knowledge: howsoeuer in shew they seeme loth, that Christes wordes should be recalled to a bare and naked figure, which for our parts, we do not.

Phi.

* 1.1236A bare figure? nay they will haue no figure in the wordes of Christ: & to that ende they vrge the very letter, as excluding all tropes & figures which you now take vp in a spleene to frustrate our proofes.

Theo.

Did the Fathers meane to frustrate your proofes, when they tooke vppe this doctrine many hun∣drethes, before you or your reall presence were hearde of?

Philand.

Do they teache the wordes of Christ, eate, this is my bodie, to bee figura∣tiue?

Theo.

I haue shewed you causes sufficient to fray the godly from the let∣ter, which doth rather kill than quicken the carnal interpreters, yet am I con∣tent to forgo them all, if in expounding the wordes of Christ figuratiuely, the catholike and ancient fathers do not make expressely with vs and against you directly.

Tertullian. a 1.1237The bread, which was taken and giuen to the Disciples, Christ made his body by saying, this is my body, that is, the figure of my bo∣die. Why doth (Christ) call bread his bodie? (Marcion) vnderstandeth not this was an old figure of the body of Christ speaking by Ieremie: they laide their handes togither against mee, saying, come, let vs cast wood on his bread, that is, the crosse on his bodie. Therefore the lightner of anti∣quities in calling the bread his bodie, fully declared what he would then (at his last Supper) haue the bread to signifie. Augustine discussing the wordes of Moses, the soule of all flesh is his blood. b 1.1238The thing, saith he, that doth si∣gnifie commonly taketh the name of the thing, that is thereby signified: as it is written, the seuen eares of corne (which Pharao dreampt of) bee seuen yeres, he said not they signifie seuen yeres: & the seuen kine be seuen yeres & many such speeches. So was it saide (by Paul) the rocke was Christ: hee sayde not, the rocke did signifie Christ, but as if it had beene the selfesame thing, which by substance it was not, but by signification. Euen so the blood because it signifieth the soule, is after * 1.1239 the manner of Sacramentes called the soule. * 1.1240 I can interprete this precept to consist of a signe (or figure) for the Lord did not sticke to say, this is my bodie, when hee gaue the signe of his bodie. And speaking in Christes person, he sayeth, d 1.1241This bodie which

you see, you shal not eate, neither shal you drinke the blood, which they that crucifie me, shall shed; I haue commended a Sacrament vnto you: that (Sa∣crament) spiritually vnderstood shal quicken you. e 1.1242It is therefore (as you hearde before out of the same Father) a figure) of speech) commaunding vs to be partakers of the Lords passion. For the Lord at his supper, saith he, f 1.1243com∣mended and deliuered to his disciples the figure of his body and blood. Cy∣priā, g 1.1244The Lord at his last supper gaue bread and wine with his own hands, on the crosse he gaue his body to be wounded by the souldiers handes, that syncere truth secretly printed in his Apostles might teach the Nations, how bread and wine were (his) flesh and blood, and how the causes agreed with their effectes, and different names and kindes might be reduced to one es∣sence, and the (signes) signifieng and the thinges signified might be called by the same names.

Origen, h 1.1245There is in the very Gospell a letter that doth kill: not onely in the old Testament is there a deadly letter found, but in the new Testament there is a letter that doth kill him, which doeth not spiritually conceiue the thinges that be spoken. For if you take this saying, (except yee eate my flesh and drinke my blood) according to the letter, this letter killeth. And againe▪ i 1.1246Not the matter of bread, but the word recited ouer it, doth profit the wor∣thy receiuer. This I speake of the typical and figuratiue body. Ambrose, k 1.1247It was the true flesh of Christ that was crucified and buried, this therefore is the Sacrament of that true fleshe. The Lord Iesus himselfe sayth, this is my body. Before the blessing of (these) heauenly wordes it is called an other kind of thing, after consecration the body of Christ is (thereby) signified. l 1.1248In eating and drinking (at the Lords table) We signifie the body and blood (of Christ) that were offered for vs.m 1.1249The new Testament is confirmed by blood, in a figure of which (blood) We reciue the mysticall cup. The priest (in the church seruice) faith, Make this oblation ascribed reasonable and accepta∣ble for vs, which is the figure of the body and blood of our Lord Iesus. Hie∣rom, n 1.1250When the Pascal lambe was eaten Iesus taketh bread which strength∣neth the heart of man, and goeth to the true sacrament of the passouer, that as Melchisedec had done offering bread & wine in a profiguratiō of him, so he likewise might represent the truth of his body & blood. o 1.1251For Iesus tooke bread and giuing thankes brake it, transfiguring his body into the breade. Chrysostom,p 1.1252 This table hath he prepared for his seruants, that hee might e∣uery day for a similitude of the body and blood of Christ, shew foorth in a Sacramēt vnto vs bread and wine after the maner of Meschisedec. q 1.1253Before it be sanctified, we cal it bread, but the diuine grace once sanctifieng the same by the ministerie of the priest, it is deliuered from the name of bread, & coū∣ted worthy to be called the Lordes body, though the nature of bread conti∣new there still. So that r 1.1254in the sanctified vessel, there is not the true body of Christ, but a mystery of his body is there contained. Nazianzene, s 1.1255Let vs bee partakers of the passeouer, figuratiuely notwithstanding as yet: though this

Passeouer bee more manifest than the former.

Theodoret.

* 1.1256Our Sauiour in deed changed the names, & called his bodie by the name of the signe, and the signe by the name of his body. The reason whereof is manifest to those that are acquainted with the diuine mysteries. He would haue the receiuers of these heauenly mysteries, not looke to the nature of the things, which are seen: but hearing the alteration of names, be∣leeue the chāge which is there made by grace. For he that called his natural body wheat & bread, & named himself a vine: the same Lord honored the signes & elements of bread & wine) which we see, with the name of his bo∣dy, & blood, not changing the nature (of the signes) but casting grace vnto nature. Prosper, u 1.1257 The diuine breade, which is the flesh of Christ, is after a sort called the body of Christ, being in deed (but) the sacramēt of Christs bodie. Which words your own law thus expoundeth. The * 1.1258 diuine bread which truly representeth the flesh of Christ, is called the body of Christ, but improperly: wherfore it is said after a sort (which is) non rei veritate, sed significante mysterio, not in exactnes of truth, but in a mysterie of signification. So that this is the meaning, it is called the body of Christ: that is (the body of Christ is thereby) signified. Bede, y 1.1259 The solemnities of the old Passeouer being ended, Christ commeth to the newe, which the church is desirous to continue in remem∣brance of her redemption, that in steede of the flesh and blood of a lamb, he substituting the sacrament (or sacred signe) of his flesh and blood in the fi∣gure of bread and wine, might shew himselfe to be the same, to whome the Lord sware and will not repent, thou art a Priest after the order of Melchise∣dec. Druthmarus, z 1.1260 The Lord gaue his disciples the sacrament of his body for the remission of sinnes, that being mindfull of his deede, they might alwaies in a figure do that, which he was to do for thē, & not forget his loue. This is my body, that is in a sacrament. Wine maketh glad & increaseth blood, and for that cause the blood of Chirst is aptly figured thereby. Bertram, a 1.1261 That bread & wine is figuratiuely the body and blood of christ: the maner thereof is in a figure & representation: in mysterio, non veritate: in a mysterie, not in truth & plaine speech.

Phi.

You thinke to winne the spurres, but you may chance to loose bootes and all. These places, which you bring, haue a shew before the simple, but there is no pith nor substance in them: and with one puffe wee can blowe them all a∣way.

Theo.

* 1.1262It must be such a puffe then, as wherwith you first blew away christ and his gospel, and brought in your own decrees, to ouerrule both God and man with the breath of your mouthes.

Phi.

You scoffe: my meaning is that I can crosse them all with one answere.

Theo.

If they were sprites, you might driue them away with crossing, but being ancient and godly fathers they will tell on their tales to your reproofe, crosse you what you will or can, in their wayes.

Phi.

I will not crosse it in their way, but in yours.

Theo.

When you will: where∣fore serue my feete but to tosse it out of the way, or at lest to step ouer it, that it hinder not my way?

Phi.

Al these fathers affirme, the bread to be a signe & figure of Christs body:* 1.1263 This we grant, and thereto adde, that it is both a figure, and the trueth it selfe. You may be gone, you haue your errand. Did I not tell you, I would soone dis∣patch you?

Theo.

You be very pleasureable whatsoeuer the matter be: but had you no better skill to dispatch men of their liues, than you haue to defeate vs of ou•• authorities, many a thowsand should now liue, that you haue slaine.

Philan.

You would runne to by-quarrels; but I must hold you to the stake.

Theo.

In deede that was alwayes the surest answere, that you gaue vs. The rest was no∣thing: no more is this.

For first it is apparently false that in Sacraments the signe & the truth may be all one thing.* 1.1264 Next if that might be, yet doth it not disappoint any one of these testimonies. For they do not only witnes that the bread is a sign of christs bodie, but also that christes wordes were figuratiue, and that in deliuering the myste∣ries he called the bread his body, by way of signification, similitude, re∣presentation, after the maner of Sacramentes, in a signe not according to the letter, but in a spirituall and mysticall vnderstanding, and if you respect the precise speech, improperly, and figuratiuely.* 1.1265 And though the signe might happily be one thing with the truth it self, as you affirm w^tout al truth; yet may not a figuratiue speech be properly takē, nor y^e letter vrged against the spirituall meaning, least that which was spoken to quicken the inward man, subuert the faith and indanger the soul, which in mistaking a figure of speech must needs in∣sue, as S. Augustine sheweth. b 1.1266In principio cauendum est ne siguratam locuti∣onem ad literam accipias. Ad hoc enim pertinet, quod ait Apostolus, litera occidit, spi∣ritus autem viuificat. Cum enim figurate dictum sic accipitur tanquam proprie di∣ctum sit, carnaliter sapitur. Neque vllamors animae congruentius appellatur. The first thing that you must beware is this:* 1.1267 that you take not a figuratiue speech according to the letter. To that belongeth the Apostles admoni∣tion, the letter killeth, the spirite quickneth. For when wee take that which is figuratiuely spoken, as if it were properly spoken, it is a car∣nall sense: Neither is there any thing more rightly called the death of the soule.

In vaine then doe you thinke to shift off the matter with this foolish con∣ceite, that one and the same thing may be both a trueth and a figure. For were that so, yet can not a figuratiue speech bee literally taken without killing the soule: and the Fathers which I produced affirme the minde and speech of our Sauiour, in calling the bread his body, was spirituall, figuratiue and mysticall by way of signification, such as is vsed in Sacra∣mentes, not literall nor carnall according to the strict s••und and order of the wordes:* 1.1268 Marie now your answere, besides that it is altogether idle, is vtterly false. For in this sacrament as in al others, there is great difference betwixt the signes and the things thēselues, and the distinct properties of ech are so sensible, that if your wits be not laid vp for holy daies, you can not but perceiue thē. The signes are visible, the things inuisible; the signes are earthly, the things heauēly

the signes corruptible, the thinges immortall: the signes corporall, the thinges spirituall.* 1.1269 The signes are one thing, the trueth is not the same, but an other thing, and euen by plaine Arythmetike, they be two things, and not one.

The Eucharist, as Ireneus teacheth, c 1.1270Consisteth of two things, an earthly & an heauenly. d 1.1271 This is it that wee say, this is it that we seeke by all meanes, saith Austen, to approue (to wit) that the sacrifice of the church is made of two and consisteth of two thinges, sacramento & re sacramenti: of the sacred signe: and the thing it selfe. For sacramentes are e 1.1272 signa rerum, aliud existen∣tia, aliud significantia, signes of truthes, being one thing in themselues, and si∣gnifieng an other. f 1.1273It were no figure, saith Chrysostome, if all thinges inci∣dent to the truth were to be found in it: much lesse if it were the truth it selfe. g 1.1274Sacraments haue a certaine similitude (but no identitie) with the thinges whose signes they be. If therefore h 1.1275 To take the signes for the thinges bee a miserable seruitude of the soule, as Austen noteth, what is it to affirme the signes to be the things themselues but a wilfull blindnesse of heart, choosing ra∣ther to rush into any brake with daunger both of credit and conscience, than to acknowledge the truth once disdayned and refused?

Phi.

I haue yet an other answere in stoare.

Theo.

If that be no better than this, your stoare is little worth.

Phi.

* 1.1276The most part of the Fathers which you bring, speake not of Christes wordes, when hee did institute the Sacrament, but declare his meaning in the sixth of Sainct Iohns Gospell when the Ca∣pernites stumbled at his doctrine.

Theo.

You may keepe this still in stoare for the goodnes of it. Tertullian, Austen, Cyprian, Ambrose, Hierom, Chryso∣stom, Theodorete, Prosper, Bede, Bertram, Druthmarus and your own law speake directly of the sacrament: and so doth Origen, when he calleth the bread on the Lords table, the typicall and figuratiue body: onely that place of his mentioneth the sixt of Iohn, where he saith, If you take this saying according to the letter, this letter killeth.

Phi.

Mary Sir that place is the chiefest: & how closely you could conuey it in amongest the rest, to make men beleeue he spake that of the sacrament, which is nothing so.

Theo.

Why? doth not the 6. of S. Iohn foretel and declare the same kinde of eating Christs flesh and drinking his bloode, which was after perfour∣med by Christ at his last supper whē he said, This is my body, this is my blood?

Phi.

Doth it say you?

Theo.

I do not say, Christ speaketh in the sixth of Iohn of the materiall ele∣mentes of bread and wine,* 1.1277 which were then first ordained to bee pledges of his inuisible graces, when the Supper was first instituted: and there∣fore not spoken of before that time: but this is it which I affirme, and in this the learned and auncient Fathers agree with mee, that where this mystery consisteth of two partes, an earthlie matter, and an hea∣uenly vertue: the sixth of Sainct Iohn treateth not of the signes, but of the thinges them-selues: not of the figures representing, but of the trueth represented: not of that which is corporally proposed, but of that which is

Ghostly receiued in the Lordes supper, which is the better and diuiner part of this Sacrament: and that the Disciples there learned, in what sort themselues and all the faithfull after them should eate the Lords flesh and drinke the Lords blood at his table, to be thereby quickned, norished, and incorporated with him,* 1.1278 as members of his mysticall body. So that if any doubt arise, not touching the creatures of breade and wine, but touching the fleshe and blood of Christ, which are the Principall partes of this mystery, the solution and explication of euery such doubt must be fet from the place, where the Lord first reuealed this secret, rebuked the Capernites for the misconstruction of his words, and taught his Disciples how they should be both fruitfull partakers of his flesh, & rightful interpreters of his speech.

Phi.

You woulde faine haue it so: but wee meane to barre you that cha••ce.

Theo.

You cannot bar vs,* 1.1279 but you must bar Chrysostom, Cyprian, Cyrill, Au∣sten and others, that confesse the same trueth before vs.

i 1.1280How chanced, saieth Chrysostome, the (Disciples) were not troubled when they heard this: take, eate, this is my body? Because (their master) had debated the same matter largely and profoundly before.* 1.1281 For at first when he spake of these thinges many were offended at the very words. So Cy∣prian, k 1.1282To the sonnes of Abraham doing the workes of Abraham the high Priest bringeth foorth bread and wine saying this is my body. There arose before this,* 1.1283 as we reade in the Gospell of Iohn, a question touching the no∣uelty of this speech, and at the doctrine of this mysterie the hearers were a∣mazed. So Cyrill, l 1.1284The (Capernites) before they beleeue, question bu∣sily with him. Therefore the Lord did not tell them how that might be, but exhorteth them to seeke for it with faith: mary to the beleeuing disciples, he gaue peeces of breade, saying: take yee, eate ye, this is my body: Like∣wise the cuppe hee deliuered round, saying: drinke yee all of this. Thou seest, that to those which asked without faith, hee did not open the maner of this mysterie, but to those which beleeued, yea when they did not aske, hee declared the same: And Augustine: m 1.1285 When Christ spake of the Sacra∣ment of his body and bloode, they saide this speech is hard. Who can heare it?

You see by the constant opinion of these Fathers, that our Sauiour in the sixt of Iohn taught his Disciples what manner of eating his flesh and drinking his blood they should expect at his last Supper, and that they therefore started not at these words this is my body, because they learned of him before what to looke for, and well remembred his interpretation of himselfe, when the Caper∣nites staggered at the like speech. Then perforce what sense the wordes of Christ in the sixt of Iohn doe beare, the same must the wordes of the supper re∣taine: but there Christ teacheth the spirituall eating of his fleshe by faith, his wordes bee figuratiue: ergo the Lordes supper doeth not import any corporal eating of his flesh, nor literall exposition of his wordes. And why? The perfor∣mance may no way differ from the promise. The promise made by Christ in

the sixt of Iohn (the bread which I will giue is my flesh) was figuratiue:* 1.1286 The wordes then of the Supper THIS (which I now giue) is my body perfour∣ming the same must likewise be figuratiue. For Seales doe not alter or in∣fringe, but strengthen and confirme that which was promised. The creatures of bread and wine Christ ordained at his last Supper to bee Sacramentes and Seales of his former promises vttered in the sixth of Iohn, ergo they change not his meaning expressed before: That was spiritual & figuratiue: therefore the wordes of the Supper can not be corporall nor literall. And the wordes of O∣rigen expounding the sixt of Iohn, are a iust proofe, that if in the wordes of the Supper you follow the letter, that letter killeth.

Phi.

This can not be. Christ in the sixth of Iohn, you say, teacheth a spiritu∣all and figuratiue kinde of eating his fleshe, and in deliuering the Sacrament we be sure he spake of a corporall not of a spirituall eating his body. For when our Lord saide take, eate, this is my body, did hee not meane they should take it with their handes, and eate it with their mouthes? And therefore either the one place doth not serue to expound the other,* 1.1287 or else in both places is prescri∣bed a reall and corporall eating the flesh of Christ, & drinking his blood: which we rather imbrace as the likeliest.

Theo.

In those wordes take and eate, spoken at the last Supper, hee ment, no doubt, the corporall taking and eating of that creature which hee gaue them: and when hee added this is my body, which hee tolde them before they must eate, if they would haue any life in them, he recalled to their mindes, as Chrysostom noteth, the doctrine hee had taught them of eating his flesh and drinking his blood: in which because they were wel instructed by the Capernites error and their masters declaration of himselfe (that the wordes, which he spake, were spirite and life) they neither started nor stumbled at his speech,* 1.1288 but presently perceiued the Lord was ordayning a Sacrament to confirme their faith, and not hiding his fleshe vnder accidentes or any other couerts to enter their mouthes, for which grossenes the Capernits were before reproued.

Christes exposition therefore in the sixt of Iohn, was purposely made to con∣fute the carnal Iewes, who when they heard of eating mans flesh and drinking blood, dreampt of no kind of eating and drinking but with their bodily iawes & lips, and for that cause murmured, as if they had beene inuited to some barba∣rous & brutish act: & next to teach the disciples that indured his words, in what sort they should looke for a diuiner & purer kind of eating the flesh of Christ, and drinking his blood,* 1.1289 by beleeuing, hoping and reioycing in his fleshe, that was wounded, and blood that was shed for their sinnes. This he assured, and ratified vnto them, by ordaining afterward a Sacrament, which they shoulde visi∣bly see, but inuisibly vnderstand: & corporally receiue, but spiritually interprete: in beleeuing the same by the power of his worde and spirit to haue in it, & cary with it the fulnes of his trueth & mercy, openly sealed with those pledges of his promises, & instruments of his grace, lest their faith should faint by reason of his departure & absence from thē, or their harts faile them as if they were destitute

of his protection & fauor, amidst so many troubles as should inclose them.

Phi.

If you * 1.1290 will needes haue the sixt of S. Iohn to pertaine to the Sacra∣ment: then is there, say we, a reall & corporall kind of eating established in that chapter. For Christ in plaine speech saith,* 1.1291 my flesh is meate in deede, and my blood is drinke in deede.

Theo.

It is well that you bethinke your selfe at last: you were about to dissent both frō the fathers & from your own felowes. For the fathers, as I haue shewed you, confesse that the Disciples were by the words of Christ in this place instructed how they should eate his flesh & drinke his blood, euen in the sacrament:* 1.1292 & that made thē vnderstand him when he said, take, eate, this is my body, drink ye al of this, this is my blood; and as for the men of your side, they run all to this issue, that the sixt of Iohn not only treateth of the sacra∣ment, but also strongly concludeth your reall presence, and externall eating of Christs flesh with bodily partes, as with teeth, throte, and such like: in so much that if you goe that way, which you were about, you goe alone.

Your friende Master Harding with a present courage, as his manner is, saith: o 1.1293We can not finde where our Lord perfourmed the promise which he made in the first chapter of Iohn: the breade which I will giue is my fleshe, which I will giue for the life of the world, but only in his last supper. Steuen Gardiner his Master vttered euen the very same wordes before him. p 1.1294 Pro∣misit Dominus se daturum nobis in pane carnem suam, dicens, panis, qu••m ego da∣bo, caro mea est, quam ego dabo pro mundi vita. Sed quod promisit Christus, nō legimus cum praestitisse nisi in coena.* 1.1295 The Lord promised that he would giue vs his flesh in bread, when he said, the bread that I will giue is my flesh, which I will giue for the life of the world. But that which Christ promised wee doe not read that he perfourmed, except it were in the Supper. And though they both ouerlash, when they say he performed it only in the supper, yet in this you may not vary frō them, that he performed that promise of his, & verified that do∣ctrine of his in the supper. For so the fathers said before them as I haue proued: and so your late Testament vpon the sixt of S. Iohn saith of al their side,* 1.1296 The ca∣tholikes teach these wordes to be spoken of the sacrament.

Phi.

We do so.

The.

Then what exposition the learned & ancient fathers made of Christs words in the 6. of Iohn,* 1.1297 the same they intēded & referred to the words of the supper: But the words of christ teaching vs in the 6. of Iohn that we must eate his flesh & drinke his blood, before we can haue my life in vs, are by the cō∣mon consent of all the fathers Allegoricall, mysticall & figuratiue, ergo the figu∣ratiue interpretatiō of Christs words in the supper is catholike.

Phi.

Think you we are so foolish as to beleeu that y^e fathers were the autors of your figures?

Th.

Chuse whether you wil beleeue vs or no, we speak no more thā we mean to proue.

Clemens Alexan. The Lord in the gospel of Iohn when he said, eate ye my flesh & drink ye my blood, he called that by an alegory, meat & drink, which is euidētly mēt of (our) faith & (his) promise. Tertul. He pronounced his flesh to be that heauēly bread, vrging thē al along (that dicourse) with an allegory of needefull foodes to remember their fathers that preferred the bread and

flesh of Egypt before the diuine vocation. Origen,* 1.1298 Our Lord and Sauiour saith except you eate my flesh, and drinke my blood, you shall not haue life in you My flesh is truely meate & my blood is truly drinke. He that can no skill of these things may perhaps turn his eare from them, as they did which said: how can he giue vs his flesh to eat? who can heare it? & they departed frō him. But you, if you be the children of the church, if you acquainted with mysteries (& Sacraments) of the Gospell acknowledge the thinges that wee say,* 1.1299 they be the Lords. Acknowlege that there be figures in the diuine books, & therefore examine thē as spirituall men, not as carnall, & vnderstand what is said. If you conster these thinges as carnall men, they hurt you, they doe not nourish you. Chrysostom, The words that I speak to you are spirite, that is, spirituall, hauing nothing that is carnall in them. If a man should carnal∣ly take them he should gaine nothing.* 1.1300 What is carnally to vnderstand thē? Simply as they be spoken, neither to seek any farther.* 1.1301 For the things that we see, must not so be iudged of, but all mysteries (& Sacraments) must be consi∣dered with the inward eyes, that is spiritually.

Phi.

Spiritually we grant we must vnderstand them, but not figuratiuely.

Theo.

What is spiritually, but figuratiuely? Eating and drinking are corpo∣rall actions, not spirituall; and properly perfourmed with the partes of our bo∣dies, not with the powers of our soules.* 1.1302 Since then by the constant confession of all the fathers, the Lord throughout this chapter did not refer eating & drinking to the bodies of his Disciples, but vnto their soules: and ment their faith, & not their teeth: it is apparant that the wordes of our Sauiour are allegoricall and figuratiue, I meane translated and deriued by an allegorie from the body to the mind, from chamming to beleeuing, from swallowing to remembring, to be short, from the flesh of his Disciples to their spirites, and in that respect cal∣led spirituall. The manner of eating there specified is spirituall, the wordes there vsed are mysticall, to wit, not literall but allegoricall: and so the Fathers mainly teach.

Basil, u 1.1303 Tast & see how sweete the Lord is. We haue often marked that the powers of the soul are called by the same names by which the members of the body are. Because then our Lord is the true bread, & his flesh is meate indeede, it must be that the sweetnes of that delicious bread be felt of vs by meanes of spirituall tast.* 1.1304 There is a certaine mouth of the minde and ••oule within man, which is nourished by the word of life, the bread I mean which came from heauen. Origen, x 1.1305To euery part (or power) of the soule Christ becommeth euerything. Therefore he is called the true light, that the eyes of the soule may haue wherewith to be lightned, therfore the word, that the eares (of the soule) may haue what to heare, therefore the bread of life, that the tast of the soule may haue what to relesse.* 1.1306 Tertullian, y 1.1307The wordes that I haue spoken to you, be spirit and life. Making his word to quicken by rea∣son his word is spirite and life: hee called the same word his flesh, because the word was made flesh, and so for the procuring of life was to bee

desired (yea) TO BE DEVOVRED WITH HEARING, CHEWED WITH VNDERSTANDING, AND DIGESTED WITH BELEEVING.* 1.1308 Cyprian. x 1.1309The master of this ordinance (and feast) saide that except we did eate (his flesh) and drinke his blood, we should haue no life in vs; directing vs with a spirituall instruction and opening our wittes for the conceiuing of so great a matter, thereby to let vs vnderstād that our abiding in him is eating & (our) drinking is as it were an incorporating with him in that (mutual) seruices are yeelded, wils ioyned, and affections vnited.* 1.1310 The eating therefore of this flesh is a certaine coueting and desiring to abide in him. Athanasius. a 1.1311Therefore doth he mention his ascending into heauen, to pull from them their corporall cogitations (and thinking on his flesh,) and that they might thenceforth learne that the flesh of which he spake, was celestiall foode from heauen, and spirituall nourishment which hee giueth. Augustine. b 1.1312Why preparest thou thy teeth and thy bellie? BELEEVE AND THOV HAST EATEN. c 1.1313 To beleeue in him, this is to eat the liuing bread. HE THAT BELEEVETH EATETH. He is inuisibly fedde, because hee is inuisibly regenerated. He is inwardly a babe, inwardly new. In what part he is renewed, in that part is he nourished. Bernard that in respect of antiquitie liued but yesterday can teach you the meaning of this place. d 1.1314 When they heard him say, except you eate the flesh of the sonne of man and drink his bloud; they saide this is an hard speach, and departed from him. And what is to eate his flesh and drinke his bloud, but to communicate with his passions, and imitate that conuersation which he ledde (here) in flesh?

The text it selfe doth in sight conuince so much:* 1.1315 The Lord often times ex∣poundeth his owne wordes purposly to this effect, e 1.1316 Worke not for the meate which perisheth, but for the meate which dureth to eternall life, f 1.1317and this is the worke of God, that you beleeue in him whom he hath sent. g 1.1318 I am that bread of life, he that commeth to me (not by walking but by beleeuing) shal not hunger, he that beleeueth in me shal neuer thirst. Hunger and thirst are no way quenched, but with eating and drinking. Then how can the beleeuer but still hunger, and still thirst, except we graunt that he, which beleeueth, both eateth and drinketh?h 1.1319 Verily verily I say vnto you, except you eate the flesh of the sonne of man, and drinke his bloud you haue no life in you. He then which hath life▪ per consequence eateth the flesh of christ and drinketh his bloud: but he that beleeueth hath eternall life, as our Sauiour affirmeth in the same place with no lesse vehemencie, i 1.1320 Verily verily I say vnto you, he that beleeueth in me hath euerlasting life; ergo he that beleeueth eateth the flesh and drinketh the bloud of Christ. For if eating and drinking in this place were referred, to the mouth and teeth, how could Iudas, or any other of the wicked that is once partaker of the Lordes table, perish? The wordes of Christ be plaine. k 1.1321 Your fathers did eate Manna in the wildernes, and are dead: If any man eate of this bread he shal liue for euer: l 1.1322whosoeuer eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud, hath eternall life. But the wicked notwithstanding the corporal cham∣ming

of this Sacrament die the death of sinners,* 1.1323 ergo they neither eat the ••lesh of Christ, nor drink his bloud, not because their teeth or iawes faile them, but by reason they want faith which is the right and proper instrument of spiritual eating. Since then man m 1.1324 beleeueth with his heart vnto righteousnes, as Paul teacheth, not with his iawes nor lippes; ergo the soul of man, which only beleeueth, only doth eate the flesh of Christ; and our bodies which haue no meanes to beleeue, can neither eate nor drinke in that sort and sense that our Sauiour there speaketh of.

You cannot with honestie steppe from so manifest, both Scriptures and Fa∣thers, as these bee that I haue brought; or if you can dally with so good and graue witnesses in so weightie matters, I trust the Godly will bee fully resol∣ued that the manner of eating Christs flesh and drinking his bloud,* 1.1325 which the Lord himselfe first proposed in the sixt of Iohn, was not LITERALL NOR CORPORALL, as the Capernites vnderstand him and were deceiued, but ALLEGORICALL AND SPIRITVALL. ALLEGORICALL in re∣spect of the words which be not there precisely taken in their vsuall significati∣on for grinding with the teeth, and straining downe the throate, but figuratiue∣ly spoken, and import as much as confessing & imbracing with hart and inward affectiō. SPIRITVAL, because not our mouths, but our minds, not our bellies, but our spirites are nourished with the flesh and bloud of Christ, and that not by chewing or swallowing, but by remembring and beleeuing that his bodie was wounded, and his bloud shedde for our perfect and eternall redemption.

* 1.1326 Now the Lords Supper is correspondent not contrarie to the first of Iohn, as we saw before by the verdit of the fathers, & confession of your selues: there∣fore the Lords table teacheth no literall nor carnal, but a spirituall & mysticall eating of the ••lesh of Christ and drinking of his bloud: which you cannot obserue so long as you presse the letter of these wordes: Take, eat, this is my body. For taking and eating in the Supper bee corporall actions, euen as break∣ing the bread and deliuering the cup are. Then if the wordes this is my bodie bee literall, the consequent is ineuitable that the flesh of Christ is really taken with hands, actually brused with teeth, corporally lodged in the belly: But this error the Lorde in his own person confuted, and the Catholike fathers refell as impious, irreligious and haynous, ergo the wordes of the Supper this is my body, bee not literall, but rather aunswerable to the doctrine proposed in the sixt of Iohn, which is nothing lesse than literal.

Phi.

You make but a double manner of eating Christes flesh, where you should make a triple. A carnal, spirituall, * 1.1327 and Sacramentall. A carnal, which the capernites dreampt of, when they supposed they should haue eaten raw flesh to sight and tast as they did other meates. A spirituall, by faith and vnder∣standing; in which sort, euery good man may eate the flesh of Christ and drinke his bloud at any time without the mysteries. A Sacramentall, as when wee

eate the flesh of Christ vnder the formes of bread and wine: though we neither see nor ••ast flesh or blood. Of these three sortes the sixt of S. Iohns Gospell re∣felleth onely the carnall, which the Capernites grossely fell to, when they heard our Sauiour speake of the Sacrament.

Theo.

I blame you not, if you bee loath to be counted Capernites. They were reproued by our Sauiour as grosse mistakers of his speach;* 1.1328 and lewde forsakers of his fellowship: but would God you were as willing to leaue their error, as you be to refuse their name.

Phi.

Wee be farder, than you from their opinion. And you be rather Capernites: that aske how can he giue vs his flesh to eate, and will not beleeue any eating of Christes bodie with the mouth, except your eyes and tongues maie first discerne and tast the same.

Theo.

We aske not him, how he can doe anie thing that he will; but wee aske you, how you know that both his will and his worde are changed since he rebu∣ked the Capernites for their grossenes?

Phi.

We doe not say that either his will or his word are chaunged.

Theo.

Then the doctrine of eating his flesh and drinking his blood, which he del••uered in the sixt of Iohn, remaineth in the same force and strength, that it did at first, when he reuealed it to his disciples.

Philand.

It doth.

Theo.

And the same exposition of his woordes, which he then annexed to them, abi∣deth good for euer.

Phi.

What else?

Theo.

And he, that deuiseth•• or tea∣cheth any other manner of eating his flesh or drinking his bloode at his last Suppper,* 1.1329 than is there declared and confirmed by himselfe, is either a Caper∣nite or worse.

Phi.

He is.

Theo.

But that eating which he there taught, was by faith and vnderstanding; and they that murmured at him and depar∣ted from him thought he had ment eating with the mouth and teeth: What l••ck you then of the Capernites error, when you affirme that the naturall and substantiall bodie of christ is really eaten with teeth, and locally dis∣cendeth into the stomacke, which is the waie that all other meates doe passe, when they nourish the bodie?

Phi.

We defie both you and them: we doe not incline to their error. We eat christ in a mysterie by faith: and though we tast & see nothing, but bread & wine, yet doe we preferre the trueth of his promise before the iudgemēt of our senses, which you doe not. And therefore you falsely slaunder vs, when you charge vs with the carnall opinion of the capernites.

Theoph.

I can yeeld you no freer choice, than if you like not their companie, to leaue their error. You must not looke to misconster the wordes of christ as they did, and take skorne to be called as they were.

Phil.

I tell you, wee doe not teare the flesh of christ with our teeth, as they thought they should.

Theo.

You holde that the flesh of christ entereth your mouthes,* 1.1330 and is really bruised (though somewhat fauourablie) with your teeth, and locallie dis∣cendeth downe your throates into the closet of your bellies. What differ you now from the capernites? what kinde of eating were they rebuked for, if not for this?

* 1.1331Moe kindes of eating, than by minde or by mouth, with faith or with teeth, that is, corporall, or spirituall, you cannot imagine. Man hath no mo partes but a soule and a bodie, therefore he can vse no kinde of eating, but either with his soule, or with his body. You must new frame men, which is past your reach, before you can chalenge this diuision as vnsufficient: ech part hath his kinde and sort of eating. Now which of these twaine did the Capernites fa∣sten on; the spirituall or the corporall kinde of eating the flesh of Christ? Not the spirituall, for they n 1.1332 beleeued not as the Scripture saith of them, and they which lack faith, lack the right and true meanes of spirituall eating. Besides, our Sauiour went about to teach them the spirituall eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood, for so doth himselfe expound his owne woordes, and his whole Church after him did testifie that his meaning. If then the Capernites lighted on the same manner of eating, which christ proposed to them, they deser∣ued rather praise than blame: but they mistooke the wordes of christ, and were rebuked of him, ergo they thought on the corporall eating of christs flesh with teeth and iawes, which is the selfe same point that you affirme in your doc∣trine.

Phi.

We neither * 1.1333 see nor tast the flesh of christ, which they dreampt they should, and therefore we be most free from their madnes.

Theo.

You cham the flesh of christ actuallie with your teeth and swallowe the same d••wne your throates: and these be the proper actions and right instrumentes of externall and caperniticall eating, your eyes and your tast be not: els blind men and such as by reason of sicknes can tast nothing, by your diuinitie can eate nothing: and meates so deuised and handled by art that we can neither by sight nor tast dis∣cerne them, if your Rule be good, be neither corporallie taken nor eaten, which is so false that wee neede not refute you, cookes and Pastlers will laugh you to scorne. Grinding with teeth and swallowing downe the throat that it may descend to the stomack is the verie definition of carnall eating: and since you concurre with the capernites in those two pointes, notwithstanding you vary from them in sight and tast, yet your opinion establisheth a corporall eating of christes flesh and a literall peruerting of his wordes no lesse than theirs did.

And which of the learned fathers I pray you, did euer put this difference be∣tweene the words of christ & the capernites error, that where they thought they should haue both eaten & seene his flesh, the Lord ment that indeed they should as they thought eate the same with their teeth and iawes, marie they should not see nor tast it. Was this the meaning of our Sauiour when he saide, The wordes that I speake to you be spirite and life? Did his Church after him so conster his wordes? o 1.1334 The thinges that he spake were not carnall but spiri∣tuall, saith Athanasius. p 1.1335 They were spirituall hauing nothing in them that was carnall, as Chrysostome and Theophilact witnes. q 1.1336 Examine them as spirituall men, saith Origen, not as carnall.* 1.1337 The letter doeth kill h••m that doth not spirituallie weigh the things that are spoken. r 1.1338 Christ giueth vs a spirituall instruction, saith Cyprian: and Austen, s 1.1339 Vnderstand you spiritually

that which I haue spoken. t 1.1340 Christ here calleth the spirit, the spirituall vn∣derstanding of those things that he spake, saith Oecumenius. u 1.1341 What is spirit and life, saith Bede? They must be vnderstood spiritually. What is now left for you and your fellowes but either to be coupled with the Capernits for your literall pressing the wordes of Christ and corporall eating of his flesh,* 1.1342 or els to proue, which you can hardly doe, that your teeth and iawes be not car∣nall as the Capernits were, but spirituall. Your mouthes and bellies I trow be flesh and not spirite; members of the bodie, no parts of the mind; in them con∣sisteth neither faith nor deuotion, and therefore vnlesse you can transubstantiate your soules into your iawes, and your harts into your throates, your receiuing of Christ in at mouth, and chamming his flesh with teeth that it may passe to your stomackes, is neither spirituall nor mysticall, but a carnall and right Ca∣perniticall kind of eating.

Phi.

Why doe you twite vs with the Capernites whom we so often haue disclaimed? They feared lest they should eate raw flesh: we haue no such feare.

Theo.

The flesh of Christ, which you eate, can not be reall if it be not raw: and therefore your stomackes may be stronger to digest it than theirs were, but you eate the flesh of a liue man with your mouthes which they feared they should, and were deceiued.

Phi.

They thought they should haue eaten Christ by peece meale.

Theo.

And is your opinion any whit the better, because you eate him whole at one morsel?

Phi.

This is profane scoffing.

Theo.

Take heede that yours bee not worse than prophane eating of that which is diuine & holy.* 1.1343

Phi.

We eate his flesh in a mysterie.

Theo.

What mysterie lyeth in your mouthes and bellies?

Phi.

Is it not a greate mysterie that Christ is eaten vnder the formes of bread and wine?

Theo.

None at all, if you set your teeth and iawes on worke to eate him as the Capernites thought they should, when they peruerted the wordes of Christ.

Phi.

They supposed they should haue seene and tasted mans flesh, which is horrible.

Theo.

Eating as I haue shewed you, doth consist not in seeing or tasting, but in chamming and swallowing: & since you therein consent with the Capernites, though you could alleadge twentie diuersities betweene their maner of eating & yours, yet both are corporal and contrary to that doc∣trine which Christ deliuered in the sixt of Iohn•• For that, as I haue proued, was intended and referred to the soules and spirits of men, not to their throats or entrals: and therefore well in couering the body of Christ, and deluding your senses, you may differ from the Capernites: but in preparing your teeth and iawes for the flesh of Christ, and in drawing his wordes from their mystical and figuratiue sense, you ioyne with the Capernites against all the Catholike Fa∣thers that euer wrate in the Church of Christ.

Phi.

Haue we, thinke you, * 1.1344 no fathers with vs, as well for the literall con∣struction of Christs wordes, as for the * 1.1345 corporal eating of his flesh in the Sa∣crament? Corporall I call it, not because we see it or tast it, as we doe other meates, but because we be sure it entereth our mouthes when we receiue our

rightes, and is really contained in our bodies.

Theo.

You may abuse some fathers to make a shew: but otherwise you haue no ground in them either of your literall vnderstanding Christs speach, or corporal eating of christs ••lesh.

Phi.

Haue we not? * 1.1346S. Damascen, S. Epiphanius, Theophilact, Euthymi∣us and others earnestly presse the literal construction of christs words against your signes and figures: and as for eating the flesh of Christ with our very mouthes, S. Austen, S. Chrysostom, S. Leo, S. Gregorie, S. Cyril, Ter∣tullian & others are resolute, whō I trust you wil not condemn for Capernites. By this way the simple learne what to looke for at your hands, that wil out∣face so plaine a trueth.

Theo.

He that will be good at outfacing let him studie your Testament, and hee neede none other teacher: but what trueth is it that we outface?

Phi.

Neuer father, you said, auouched the literal sense of Christes wordes.

Theo.

* 1.1347I said, no ancient father; of which number I do not account these late Grecians to be. And therefore if they did contradict that which Tertullian, Au∣sten, Origen, Chrysostome and others did teach long before them, wee would not regard them: but as yet I see•• no such thing proued by them.

Phi.

* 1.1348The proofe is easie. S. Damascene rehearsing the wordes of Christ, This is my body, immediately addeth, not a figure of my body, but my body; not a figure of my bloud, but my bloud. S. Epiphanius likewise, (Christ) said, take, eate, this is my body.* 1.1349 Hee saide not take, eate the Image of my body. And Theophilact,* 1.1350 Bread is the very bodie of our Lord and not a figure correspondent. For he said not this is a figure, but this is my bo∣dy. And so Euthymius,* 1.1351 Christ said not these are signes of my body, but these are my body. These be manifest places: and yet such is your impudencie that you affirme no father euer vrged the literall force of Christes words.

And so for the corporall eating of Christs flesh with our mouthes: S. Au∣gustine saith,* 1.1352 It hath pleased the holy Ghost that in the honour of so great a Sacrament, our Lordes bodie should enter into the mouth before other meates. And S. Chrysostome,* 1.1353 Our mouth hath gotten no small honour receiuing our Lordes bodie. And S. Gregorie, (The bloud of the lambe) is sucked not only by the mouth of the heart, but also by the mouth of the body. And S. Leo,* 1.1354 That is receiued by the mouth which is beleeued by the heart. And Tertullian,* 1.1355 (Our) flesh doth feede on the bodie▪ and bloud of our Lord▪ And S. Cyril,* 1.1356 It was needfull that this rude and earthly body should be recouered to immortalitie by touch, tast and foode of the same kind with it selfe. You aske for fathers: here they be both many in number and auncient in time to discharge vs that we be no Capernites: and to refell your foolish vaunt, that all antiquitie were of the verie same mind that you are now. * 1.1357It may bee you neuer heard the places before: If you did not I will pardon your ignorance so you repent your rash••es.

Theo.

Yeas sir, I haue seene them, and •••• may bee weighed them better than euer you did. And notwithstanding your magnificence, it will appeare

you be not free from ignorance, whatsoeuer you be from impudencie.

Phil.

I will burne my cloathes to my shirt if euer you answere them.

Theo.

But saue your skinne from the fire, though you spare not other mens blood nor bones.

Phi.

We * 1.1358 vse you but as heretikes should be vsed.

Theo.

If it be heresie for vs to serue god according to the Gospel of his sonne, what is it for you to serue him with your own medlees?

Phi.

You would flie the fielde rather than your life, but I must keepe you to it.

Theo.

You runne so fast from God and your Prince that you may soone ouer-goe vs, if we would flie, but as yet I see no cause.

Damascene, Theophilact, and Euthymius presse the letter of christes speach not to deriue thence your carnal and gu••tural eating of christs flesh,* 1.1359 nor to con∣troll that which Tertullian, Austen, Origen, Chrysostome, and others (men of farre greater learning and authoritie than these) taught long before them in the church of God, but to shew, that bread and wine be not only tokens and bare signes of christes fleshe and bloud but also cary with them and in them the vertue power and effect of his death and pass••on.* 1.1360 Euthymius, Christ said not these be the signes of my body and bloud, but these are my bodie and bloud. We must therefore NOT LOOKE TO THE NATVRE of the giftes which are proposed, BVT TO THE VERTVE. Against them which defend, that this Sacrament doth only figure, not offer: signifie, not exhibite grace: the letter may wel be forced to proue the diuine power and operation of the mysticall elemenets: Against vs which hold the visible signes in substance to bee creatures: in signification mysteries: in operation and vertue the things themselues, whose names they bear••, this illation conclu∣deth nothing. Yet for the better explication of him selfe and others vsing the like kind of speach: Theophilact addeth this worde ONLY. Marke that the bread which is eaten of vs in the mysteries,* 1.1361 Non est TANTVM figuratio quaedam carnis Domini, is not an only figuring of the Lords flesh, but the Lords very flesh. For he saide not the bread which I will giue, is a fi∣gure of my flesh,* 1.1362 but is my flesh. Their meaning was as we see by their own words to teach more than idle signes, or ONLY figures in the Lords supper, because together with the name goe the vert••es and effects of Christes flesh & bloud, vnited in manner of a Sacrament to the visible signes. And this their assertion neither troubleth our Doctrine, nor strengthneth your error.

Againe these writers may very well say the Sacraments of the Gospell BE NO FIGVRES but TRVETH IT SELFE,* 1.1363 in that respect, as figures bee taken for samplers of things to come. Such were the figures of the law, which did premonstrat the cōming of christ in flesh,* 1.1364 & ceased at his cōming. And so the mysteries of the Lords table were not figures of things expected, but euidences of the truth there sitting in persō, & the next day to be nailed to the crosse, therby to fulfil & abolish al figures: & our sacramēts are now not signes of farther pro∣mises, but memorials of his mercies alredy performed. Do this saith christ, (not in figure of an other truth to come) but in remēbrance of me (which am come:)

for memorie you know stretcheth only to things past and doone: and in this sense the letter may bee safely pressed, and your carnall conueyance nothing relieued.

* 1.1365I find a third cause that might induce them to force the letter in this sort, & yet no way confirming your grosse supposall, which is this. When the Greeke church fell at variance for Images, they which held that Christ ought not to be figured after the likenes of our bodies, amongest other reasons alleadged this for one, that the Lord at his Supper * 1.1366 for a true and effectuall Image of his incarnation, chose the whole substance of bread, not any way like the pro∣portion of a man, lest it should occasion Idolatry. The defenders of Images, whose side Damascene tooke, pressed with this obiection durst not flee to your annihilation of the substance of bread and adoration of the Sacrament, with di∣uine honour: which no doubt they would haue doone with great triumph, had those two points of your Doctrine beene then counted catholike, but yeelding and by their silence confessing, that the substance of bread remayned in the sup∣per,* 1.1367 and was not adored (for so the contrarie part opposed) at length for very pure neede came to this shift: that the mysticall bread was not ordained to re∣semble and figure Christs humane nature, nor so called by christ at his maundie who said not, this is a figure of my body, but my body; nor a figure of my bloud, but my bloud: and when Basil and Eustathius were produced affirming the bread and wine to be figures and resemblances of Christs flesh and bloud, the Patrones of Images replied that was spoken alwaies before, neuer after consecration. Wherefore Damascene first beganne this myncing and straining the wordes of Christ, not to build on them any reall or corporall con∣uersion of the bread into the flesh of christ, but in fauour of his artifical pictures and Images he could by no meanes abide that the mysteries should after con∣secration be called Images, and figures of Christs bodie.

The next that traced this path after Damascene was Epiphanius: not that auncient and learned Bishoppe of Cyprus, but a pratling Deacon in the ba∣stard Councell of Nice, whose furious and fanaticall answer to the Councel of Constantinople, (that made this obiection) declareth more tongue than witte, more face than learning. * 1.1368 Christ did not say take ye, eat ye the Image of my bodie. Reade whiles thou wilt (saith hee) thou shalt neuer find that either the Lord or his Apostles, or the Fathers called that vnbloudie Sacrifice, which the Priest offereth, AN IMAGE. Thus doth he braie foorth * 1.1369 defi∣ance to the whole worlde without trueth, without shame. For Chrysostome saith, a 1.1370 If Iesus were not once dead, whose image and signe is this Sacrifice? This b 1.1371 Sacrifice is an image and samplar of that Sacrifice. And Gelasius, c 1.1372Surely the IMAGE and resemblance of the bodie and bloud of Christ is celebrated in the action of the mysteries. We must therefore so thinke of the Lord Christ himselfe as we professe and obserue in his IMAGE. And likewise Theodoret. Ortho. d 1.1373 The mysticall signes which are offered to god by his Priests whereof doest thou call them signes? Eranist, Of the body &

blood of the Lord. Ortho: It is very well saide. Conferre then the image with the paterne and thou shalt see the likenes. Dionysius calleth it both an * 1.1374image and a figuratiue sacrifice. Nazianzene excusing himselfe, * 1.1375 How should I, saith he, presume to offer vnto God that externall sacrifice; the image of the great mysteries? Clemens, Offer you in your churches the image of the royall body of Christ. Macarius, * 1.1376In the Church are offered breade and wine the images of his flesh and blood.

The 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••a••hers keepe the same word & the same sense. Ambrose,* 1.1377 In the law was a shadow: in the Gospel is an image, in heauen is the trueth. Before was offered a lambe or a calf, now Christ is offred, here in an image: there in truth where he intreateth his father as an aduocate for vs. Austē,k 1.1378 Christ gaue an image of his burnt offering to be celebrated in the church for a remem∣brance of his passion. The rest say the like: but what neede we farther refutati∣on of so ridiculous and vnshamefast a bragge, such causes, such councels: such poppets, such Proctors. The very children in the church of God knowe that the diuine mysteries by the generall definition of a Sacrament be visible signes of inuisible graces, and as Augustine interpreteth the word l 1.1379Sacramentum: id est, sacrum signum, a Sacrament, that is a sacred signe. So that vnlesse they be signes they can possibly be no sacraments, & neither sacraments nor signes can they be without or before cōsecration which this stout champion had not yet lear¦ned, & therfore his verdict in matters of religion, except his cunning were grea∣ter, may be wel refused.

As Damasene and your prating Epiphanius were more than 700. yeares after Christ, so Theophilact and Euthymius are farre younger. The first of them was Bishoppe of the Bulgarians, who were conuer∣ted to the fa••eth 868. yeares after Christ: the second your owne chronologie placeth after Gracian and Lombard 1100. yeares short of Christ. Were then these later Grecians wholy with you, what gaine you by them? If you woulde oppose them to Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, Austen, Gelasius, Thedorete & o∣thers of purer times and sounder iudgements, you could winne nothing by that bargaine: the choice were soone made, which to take, which to leaue; but in deede you do them wrong to returne them for transsubstantiators: they neuer knew what it ment. They say the mysteries of the Lords table be not only fi∣gures but haue the truth annexed: No figures (of grace differed) but seales of mercy perfourmed in Christ and inioyed of vs: no called figures or images of Christes flesh after consecration, but bearing as well the names as the fruits and effects of the things themselues whose sacraments they bee. This maketh nothing for your locall inclosing of Christ vnder accidentes, neither for your corporal mingling of his flesh with your flesh, which are the two points that we chiefely detest in your reall presence.

Thus the greatest storme, from which you thought, no roose could rescue vs, is halfe ouerpast, and no hurt done: if the rest fal as faire besides vs, it wil be high time for your to leaue disputing, and fall to practising, as the rest of your fellowes

do, which bee lurking at home to infuse a rebellion, or stirring abroad to boile it vp to his highth. Your kingdom will neuer reflorish by pen and paper: you must lay more plots, and make new mariages: Your time is short, your rage great.

Phi.

When you be confuted by reason, then beginne you to charge vs with treason: but answere the places which we bring you, or I will leaue you, I haue somewhat else to doing.

Theo.

I thinke it bee the truest word you spake this moneth; but an answere, if that be all you looke for, you shall not lack••.

* 1.1380The fathers whom you alleage for eating the real & naturall flesh of Christ & drinking his blood with your mouthes & throates, are fowly abused, & their words ignorantly misconstered, if not purposely peruerted.

Phi.

Are you there at host? I see by your winding, you wil run to their meaning.

Theo.

What wrōg is that, if by their own rules, I recal you to the right conceiuing of their word••?

Phi.

If you may make rules for religion, we shall haue some wise worke of it, I dare vndertake.

Theo.

If themselues made rules to direct their hearers least their words should happily be mistaken, you shew both your religion & wisedom in refusing the same.

Phi.

We refuse thē not, if they be theirs.

Theo.

If they be not, you may the sooner repel thē.

Phi.

Wel then, what are they?

The.

There shal not be many of them: one will serue this turne.

Phi.

That one then what is it?

The.

The signes haue the names of the things themselues, & therfore out of the places which you haue brought you may not conclude, that the naturall flesh of Christ is actually eaten with teeth,* 1.1381 or his blood really drunk with your lips, but rather that the visible signes & elements which are corporally receiued into your mouthes & stomackes haue the vertues of those thinges whose names th••y beare after consecration.

Phi.

I thought we should haue some such shift: but trust me, this of all others is the fondest & absurdest that you could make. For what ground of faith shal persist vnshaken, if you giue men this scope, to confesse the n••m••s, but not the thinges? So the Iew may reply, when Christ is proued to be the true M••ssias, that he is so called, but not so in deede. So any heret••k may delude the whole scriptures, if words shal stand as empty sounds, without their sense. See to what miserie you be driuen, whiles you withstand the blessed Sa∣crament, how far better were you to adore the same with vs cathol••ks than to run into such hereticall briers?

The.

Your sumptuous exhortatiō is but a ridiculous Iudification of your selues & others. We do not say that in matters of doctrine words may be receiued with∣out their natural & due signification: but in Sacramentes we say, the signes re∣maining in their former substance are called by the names of the thinges them∣selues, & therfore you must take good heed that you do not rashly conclude that of the one which was spokē of the other: least you fall into that seruitude & sicknes of the soule, which S. Austen warned you of before.

Phi.

Would you appoint, whē the fathers words shalbe cons••ered of the signes,* 1.1382 & w••en of the things?

The.

Neither we nor you: themselues are the ••ittest men to limit what they spake of the signes, & what of the things.

Phi.

And do they say, they spake this, which I al∣leage, of the signes?

The.

They do.

Phi.

••f I should stay here til that be proued,

I should neuer go hence.

Theo.

The matter is not so hard to be proued as you make it.* 1.1383 For if they mainly teach that Christs flesh, is not eaten with teeth, not swalowed with iawes, not receiued into the cōpasse of the belly, they must eith••r contradict thēselues, which they do not: or those speeches which you bring, must be vnderstood of the signes called by the names of Christs flesh & blood, though in truth they be not those things, but sacraments of them, as they by their own cautions wil instruct you.

Phi.

I can not abide this going about the bush.

Theo.

Indeed madmē wil through the midst, though they tear their flesh to the boanes for their labor.

Phi.

Do you think vs mad?

The.

It is greater madnes to s••ea your own soules with the rigor of other mens phrases, when they giue you war∣ning to the contrary, than to wound your owne bodies with the sharpnes of a∣ny thornes.

Phi.

We presse not their speeches against their prescriptions, you ra∣ther would frustrate their meaning with your figures.

The.

Let them tell their owne tales,* 1.1384 what they teach concerning the parts of this Sacrament, & then it will soone be seene whether you or we peruert them. There be three thinges in the bread & by like proportion in the wine that may be douted of, the name, the substance, the power & operation. When we see which of these three be chan∣ged, and which vnchaunged, the myst of error will soon•• be scattered.

The name we prooue to be chaunged by the generall confession of all the fa∣thers, a 1.1385 Our Sauiour, sai••h Theodoret, changed the names and called the signe by the name of his bodie. Christ b 1.1386 called bread his bodie, saieth Ter∣tullian. c 1.1387 The signifying (elementes) and the thinges signified are called by the same names, saith Cyprian. d 1.1388 Before the wordes of Christ, saith Am∣brose, that which is offered is called bread, when once the words of Christ be rehearsed, it is now called not bread, but (his) bodie. e 1.1389 The bread, saith Prosper, is called the bodie of Christ being in trueth the Sacrament (that is the sacred signe) of Christes bodie. Chrysostom, f 1.1390 After sanctification it is discharged from the name of bread, and counted worthie to beare the name of the Lords bodie, notwithstanding the nature of br••ad still remaine. Ra∣banus, g 1.1391 Because bread strengthneth (our) bodies, therefore is it ••itly termed the bodie of Christ. Bertram. h 1.1392 The signes be called the Lords body & blood by reason they take the name of that thing whose sacraments they be.

The general rule is plainely set downe by the famous Clarke S. Austen in these wordes. i 1.1393 If Sacraments had not a certaine likenes and resemblance to the things, whose sacraments they are, they should be no sacraments at all. And for his similitude they commonly beare the names of the things them∣selues. As therefore the Sacrament of christs body is after a sort the bodie of christ, and the sacrament of christes blood (after the same sort) the blood of christ: euen so the sacrament of faith (meaning thereby baptisme) is saith. We he buried, saith Paul, with christ through baptism into his death. H•• saith not we signifie that (his) burial, but he saith plainly we 〈…〉〈…〉. The sacra∣mēt of so great a thing he would not cal but by the 〈…〉〈…〉 thing it self. Upon this verie ground be concluded,k 1.1394 as you heard 〈…〉〈…〉 L••••d dou∣bted

not not to say, this my body: when he gaue the signe of his body. What ma••uell then if the catholike Fathers vsed often the names of the body & blood of Christ, where the materiall elementes of bread and wine must be vnderstood, since this is the certaine rule of al sacraments, and the common order of all an∣cient diuines writing of the Lordes supper,* 1.1395 to call the giftes proposed at the Lordes table the body and blood of Christ. The wilfull contempt of which ob∣seruation hath miserably snared and hampered you and your fellowes euerie where referring and forcing that to the naturall fleshe of Christ, which by the learned and godly fathers was spoken and ment of the visible signes called by the names of the body and blood of Christ.

The second thing that you sticke at, is the substance of bread, which we say remaineth and abideth as well after consecration as before. You wil haue it ei∣ther vanish to nothing, or else to bee turned and conuerted into the very fleshe of Christ there present God & mā vnder the whitenes, roundnes & such like shewes & appearances of bread,* 1.1396 left only to content the sight and palate, least the raw flesh of Christ should displease your eyes or offend your tast. This is your doc∣trine, and this we say is not catholike. The church of Christ neuer held, that the substance of bread perished or ceased after consecration, it is a late deuise: you can bring no father that is ancient for this assertion: they neuer taught, they ne∣uer heard, they neuer dreampt any such thinges. They taught that the mysti∣call signes were creatures well knowen, not straunge and miraculous acci∣dentes, that the substance of bread was not changed, but remained still af∣ter consecration: and this they taught in as plaine words as heart can ima∣gine, or tongue expresse: lette the Reader bee iudge, if I ••aye not the truth.

Gelasius an ancient Bishop of Rome, for his antiquitie reuerenced of vs, for his place not to be refused of you, writeth thus against Eutiches, l 1.1397The sacra∣ments, which we receiue, of the body & blood of Christ, are a diuine thing, & by them are we made partakers of the diuine nature, & yet for all that ceaseth not the substance or nature of bread & wine to be. Theodoret, m 1.1398The mystical signes do not after sanctification depart from their own nature, for they remaine in their former substance, figure & forme. Ambrose, n 1.1399Thou camest to the altar, & ••awest the sacraments theron, & wonderest at the ve∣ry creature: yet it is a ••olemn & known creature. Ireneus, o 1.1400 Christ counseling (or willing) his disciples to offer to God the first fruits of those creatures, tooke that bread, which is a creature, & gaue thankes saying, this is my bo∣dy. p 1.1401We must therefore in all thinges be found thankefull to God the crea∣tor, offering the first fruits of those creatures, which be his: and this obla∣tion the Church onely maketh in puritie to the creatour, offering to him of his own creatures with thankes giuing. Origen (The Lords bread) accor∣ding to the material (partes) thereof goeth into the belly,q 1.1402 and thence to the draught: (so that) it is not the matter of breade that doeth pro••itte the r••cei∣uer, but the worde rehearsed ouer it. Epiphanius, r 1.1403 That which our Saui∣our

our tooke in his hand, and saide this is my (body,) wee see to bee neither proportional nor like to his image in flesh, nor his inuisible Deity: for this is of a round figure, & hath no power of sense: but our Lord wee knowe to bee wholy sense, wholy sensitiue. Cyprian, s 1.1404 Since the Lord said, do this in my re∣membrāce, this is my flesh, & this is my blood: as often as with these words, & this faith we do (that he did) this substantial bread & cup sanctified with a solemn blessing is profi••able for the life & safegard of the whole man: being both a medicine to heal our infirmities, & a sacrifice to clense our iniquities. Chrysostom, After cōsecration t 1.1405 it is deliuered from the name of bread, & re∣puted worthy to be called the Lords body, nothwithstanding the nature of bread still remaine. Austen, u 1.1406 These things are therefore called Sacramentes, because in them one thing is seen, & an other thing vnderstood. That which is seen, speciem habet corporalem, hath a corporal shape (or kind:) that which is vnderstood hath a spiritual fruit. x 1.1407 This is of al other a miserable seruitude of the soule to mistake the signes for the things themselues, & not to be able to lift vp the eye of the minde aboue the corporall creature, to behold the light that is eternall. The councell of Constantinople, y 1.1408 Christ commaunded the whole substaunce of breade, chosen for his image, to bee set on his table, least if it resembled the shape of a man, idolatrie might bee com∣mitted. Bertram, z 1.1409The signes, as touching the substances of the creatures, are the same after consecration, which they were before.

Can you looke for plainer or directer witnesses? Do they not all ioyne toge∣ther in one profession and succession of truth, that the mysticall signes after con∣secration be knowen, corporal, and senselesse creatures, abiding in their pro∣per and former, yea their whole nature and substance?* 1.1410 Be not these wordes significant and pregnant, directly con••uting your reall inclosing and corporall ea••ing of Christ vnder the shewes and accidentes of bread and wine?

The third thing that I saide was to bee considered in the elementes of bread and wine, is their power and operation. For since the substance of the crea∣tures is not chaunged, the signes coulde not iustly beare the names of the thinges them-selues, except ••••e vertue, power, and ••ffect of Christs fleshe and bloode were adioyned to them, and vnited with them after a se∣crete and vnspeakable manner by the working of the holy Ghost: in such sort that whosoeuer duelie receiueth the signe, is vndoubtedly partaker of the grace: offered vnto all, but inioyed onely by those that with fayth and repen∣tance clense the inward man from that corruption of flesh & spirit which Christ abhorreth.

Cyprian of Sacraments in generall writeth thus. a 1.1411 To the elements once sanctified, not now their owne nature giueth effect, but the diuine vertue worketh (in them) more mightily: the trueth is present with the signe, and the spirit with the Sacrament: so that the worthines of the grace appeareth by the verie efficiencie of the things. Of the Lordes Supper in speciall thus he saith. ^b There is giuen the foode of immortalitie, differing from commō

meates: Corporalis substantiae, etmens speciem, retaining the kind (or truth) of a corporal substāce (for your shewes, without substance were not yet known) but by secret efficiencie prouing the presence of the diuine vertue. This common bread chaunged into flesh and blood, procureth life and groweth to our bodies, & so by the vsuall course of these things, the weakenes of our faith is succoured, and ••aught by a sensible argument, that the effects of eter∣nal life is in the visible Sacramēts, & that we be vnit•••• to Christ no•• so much by a corporal, as by a spiritual transitiō. Ambrose, c 1.1412 Perhaps t••ou wilt say, I ••ee the likenes, I see not the truth of blood. But it hath a resemblāce. d 1.1413 For as thou tookest a resemblance of his death, so doest thou drink a resemblance of his precious blood, to this end that there should be no horror of blood, and yet it might worke the price of our saluation, and the grace of our redemption might remaine.e 1.1414 Therfore for a similitude thou receauest the Sacrament, sed ver ae naturae gratiā, virtutē{que} consequeris, but thou obtainest (therby) the grace & vertue of the true nature. Gelasius, f 1.1415 By the sacraments (which we receiue) wee be made partakers of the diuine nature: they truely represent to vs the vertues and effects of that Principal mysterie. Hilarius, g 1.1416These things tasted & taken bring this to passe, that Christ remaineth in vs: this is h 1.1417 The vertue of that table to quicken the receiuers. Leo, i 1.1418 In that mystical distribution of the spirituall nourishment that is giuen, this is taken that receiuing the vertue of the heauenly meate, we may be chaunged into his flesh, who was made flesh for vs. Chrysostom, k 1.1419 Let vs come to the spirituall dugge of this chalice, and suck (thence) the grace of the spirit.l 1.1420 Austen, The Sacrament is one thing, the vertue of the Sacrament is an other thing. m 1.1421Euery man receiueth his part, whereby grace itselfe is called parts, and where n 1.1422 the Sacraments were com∣mon to all, grace was not common to all, which is the vertue of the Sacra∣ments. And againe, The (Capernites) o 1.1423 thought he would haue giuen them his body, but he told them hee would ascend to heauen: no doubt hee ment whole. When you shall see the sonne of man ascending•• where hee was be∣fore, surely then shal you see that he doth not giue his body that way which you imagine, surely then shal you perceiue that his grace is not consumed with biting. Euthymius, p 1.1424 He doth change these things vnspeakably into his very body, that quickneth, and into his very precious blood, and into the grace of them both••: We must therfore not looke to the nature of the things proposed (at the Lords table) but vnto the vertue of them. Wherefore The∣odoretes wordes are most true, q 1.1425 The signes which are seene, Christ did ho∣nor with the names of his body and blood; not chaunging the nature (or substance of them) but casting grace vnto nature. And so did Ambrose meane when hee sayde: r 1.1426 If there bee so great strength in the word of the Lord Iesu, that all thinges beganne to bee, when they were not: howe much more shall it bee of force, that (the mysticall elementes) should be the same they were before, and yet bee chaunged into an other thing? The same in earthly matter and substaunce which they were before, chaunged in

vertue, power and working, whereby wee see they beare not onely the names, but also the fruites and effectes of those thinges, whose Sacraments they bee.

This is their doctrine touching the visible part of this Sacrament,* 1.1427 which is seene with eyes, felt with handes, and ••rused with teeth: of that there is no doubt but it entereth our mouthes and resteth in our bowels: and that, for the causes which I before rehearsed, a••••er consecration is e∣u••ry where called by th••m the Lordes body: but that the naturall fleshe of Christ, which is th•• other and inwarde part of the Sacrament, en∣tereth the mouth, or abideth the teeth, or passeth downe the throate, or lo••geth in the stomack: this is a position wholy repugnant both to Fathers and Scriptures.

s 1.1428Doe you not know, sayth Christ, that whatsoeuer thing from without entereth into a man▪ can not defile him: because it entereth not into his heart, but into the be••lie. Then by the iudgement of our Sauiour nothing can enter ••oth the h••a••t & the b••lly: but the flesh of Chris•• entereth into the h••art, ergo 〈…〉〈…〉. t 1.1429 The bellie, saieth Paul, is for meates & meates for the bellie, and God will destroy both it and them: the bodie of Chr••st G••d w••ll not destroy, it is therefore no meate for the bellie. If not for the ••••l∣li••, then not for the mouth,u 1.1430 because eue••ie thing that entereth the mouth goeth into the bellie, and so foorth to the ••raught. But so basely to th••nk of the fl••sh of Christ is apparent and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 wickednesse: e••go the fleshe of Christ neither fill••th our bellies, nor ••nt••r••th ou•• mo••••••••:x 1.1431 For no∣thing that entereth the mouth, can either defile (or sanctifie) Meat••s, * 1.1432 saith Paul (whi••h passe by the mouth) doe not commend vs vnto ••od, neither doeth the king••om of God (which is our sanctification•• con•••••• of m••ats, and drinkes:* 1.1433 but Christ a 1.1434 with his blood doeth sanctifie the people: and b 1.1435 hee that ••at••th my fl••sh & drinketh my blood, saith ••e, remaineth in mee and I in him, and hath eternall life, ergo ne••ther his fleshe nor ••••s blood enter ou•• m••uthe••. To be short,c 1.1436 Christ dwelleth not in bellies by locall com∣prehension, but in our hearts by faith: his fl••he seedeth not ••ur bodies for a ti••e, but our soules for euer: his wordes were spoken not of our mouthes, which be••le••ue not: ••ut of our spirites, which haue no fleshe nor boanes: and consequently neither teeth to grinde, nor iawes to swallow, but one∣ly ••aith and vnderstanding.

Lette all this bee ••••••de, if the learned and auncient Fathers doe not conclude the same. Chrysostome, d 1.1437 Care not for the nourishment of the bodie, but of the spirit. (Christ is the bread) which ••ee••••th not the bodie but the soule, and e 1.1438 filleth not the belly, but the minde. Ambrose, f 1.1439 Christ is in that sacrament, because it is the bodie of Christ.g 1.1440 It is therefore no bodily, but Ghostly meate. NOT THIS BREAD, which entereth into the bodie, but the bread of eternall life is it that vpholdeth the sub¦staunce of our soule. Cyprian, h 1.1441 As often as we doe this wee whe•• not our

teeth to bite, but we breake the sanctified bread with a sincere faith. Cyril, i 1.1442Let vs therefore (as our Sauiour saith) labour not for the meate, which go∣eth into the bellie, but for the spirituall foode, which confirmeth our harts and leadeth vs to eternall life. Austen, k 1.1443 It is not lawfull to deuoure Christ with teeth. b 1.1444 Prepare not your iawes, but your harts. We take but a morsel, & our hart is replenished. Therfore not that which is seen, but that which is be∣leued, doth feed. m 1.1445 Why prouidest thou thy teeth & thy belly? Beleeue & thou hast eaten. Be••trā, At the Lords table n 1.1446 we look not on that which is brokē in peeces, which is pressed with teeth, which feedeth the body, but onely that which is taken spiritually by faith. Doth the meate (which the faithful re∣ceiue in the church) as touching that which is corporally taken, that which is chammed with teeth, that which is swallowed with iawes, that which is closed in the compasse of the belly, put vs in assurance of eternall life? This way (no question) it feedeth our flesh, which shall dy, neither yeeldeth vs a∣ny kind of incorruption. For this, which the body receiueth, is corruptible: that which fayth beholdeth feedeth the soule, and perfourmeth vs euerla∣sting life.

If these fathers be not able to remoue you from the corporal eating of christs flesh with teeth & iawes, heare in how plaine termes your own Law doth check this grossenes of yours. o 1.1447 The flesh of Christ is not incorporated with vs, des∣cendeth not into the stomacke, passeth not into the nourishment of the bo∣dy, for it is the food of the soule, not of the body. And where Pope Nicholas draue Berengarius in his recantation to say, that the flesh of Christ was truely chāmed between the teeth of the faithful: Your Gloze could forebear no lon∣ger, but cried out, p 1.1448 Nisi sanè intelligas, except thou take good heede to these words, thou shalt fal into a greater heresie than euer Berengarius held. Then blame not vs Philander for saying this your assertion is not catholike, the Pro∣uost Mareschall of your owne side, not long since, sayde it was hereti∣call.

Phi.

Haue you done?

Theo.

I haue if you list to begin.

Phi.

What a stirre is here to bring beggers to the stockes, & al not worth a straw?

Theo.

In deede Friers are the neerest kinsmen that beggers haue: they both liue by shifting, & gaine by dissembling, saue that Friers are alwaies within doores, when beg∣gars are without: But what is it that doth so much offend you in my speech?

Philan.

You runne along with Scriptures and Fathers, as if all were yours.

Theophil.

I shew you a trueth confirmed by the Scriptures, auouched by the Fathers, and confessed by your owne fellowes: If that displease you, your mouth is out of tast.

Philand.

Haue you the trueth? so hath the Diuell: for you bee his members in that you bee Heretikes.

Theo.

This is but a iades tricke, when you feele the spurres, to fling out behind. The more you reason the more you finde that you haue runne the race of your owne deuises without the fathers: and now you can not resist, you fall to reui∣ling and cursed speaking.

Phi.

We can with one lifte lay all your authorities in the mi••e.* 1.1449

Theoph.

Your can is great, but your liquor small. I dare promise for you, that you will struggle what you can to bee rid of the burden.

Phi.

With three bare words I wil answere your three parts, and all your proofes.

Theo.

They may be so bare, they will doe you no good: but at aduenture what are they?

Phi.

That the signes after consecration carie the names, and effectes of the things themselues: I graunt it to be very true, but it answereth not the pla∣ces which I did obiect: And as for the substance of bread remaining, which s••me Fathers seeme to affirme, wee say substance is there tak••n not for the very substance it selfe, which is really changed into the body of Christ, but for some other thing.

Theo.

What other thing?

Phi.

Not for that which you meane.

Theo.

Let my meaning alone, and speake you to their assertion that say the breade and wine remaine after Consecration in their former and pro∣per nature and substance.* 1.1450

Phi.

Substance is there taken for nature.

Theo.

Nature is so general that it compriseth both the substance & accidents of euery thing. If then the signes remaine in their former nature, they must retaine both their former substance, and their former accidents.

Phi.

Their substance they doe not: their qualities they doe, as sight, tast, bignes and such like pro∣perties.

Theo.

But the places which I cite, affirme, they retaine both; and namely their proper and former substance.

Phi.

That is, their former quali∣ties.

Theo.

Doth substance signifie qualities?

Phi.

In these places * 1.1451 it doth.

Theo.

Why more in these than in others?

Substance in all learning is diuided against accidents: how then commeth substance by your learning to be taken for accidents?

Phi.

It is so. For o∣therwise those sayings were all one with heresie, if substance should be taken in his proper signification.

Theo.

Yea marie: now you come to your right co∣lours. If the fathers words should not be violently wrested from their perpe∣tual & naturall signification, you cannot possibly auoide, but they taught ••hat doctrine for Catholike, which you now reiect for heresie.

Phi.

* 1.1452 They neuer taught it.

The.

Themselues be dead, and do not speake: their words in which they spake, whiles they liued, make as directly for vs, as we can spake any: vn∣lesse you turne all that euer they said, the vpside downe, and take figures for truths, substance for accidents, creatures for shewes, teeth for faith, & heauen for earth. Which priuilege of interpreting scriptures and fathers cleane con∣trarie to the sense, if you can procure or iustifie, I will be your suretie, all the Protestants in Christendome shal neuer touch the least haire of your heads, in all the follies, which you defend.

Phi.

We doe not force them against their meaning. Then shew your exposi∣tion to be true by other points of their doctrine, and partes of their writings, which must infallibly force you to that construction.

Phi.

So we doe.

Theo.

With places as shamefully abused as these.

Phi.

No by inumerable and ine∣uitable authorities.

Theo.

Bring but one father that shall say the substance of bread and wine is ceased or abolished by consecration, and you shall haue

free leaue to doe what you will, with all the rest.

Phi.

We can bring infinite.

Theo.

You may the sooner choose out one.

Philan.

You would put vs to bring other proofes, before you haue answered those that are alreadie produced. I brought you sir fathers affirming the fl••she and bloud of Christ were receiued with our mouthes: you would leape to new matter, and shake them off at your fingers end: but I will none of that. First make euen with the old scores before you enter on a new reckoning.

Theophi.

You were the cause of that digression, and not I. You replied to my proofes and persued not your owne.

And yet you neede not say your places are vnanswered, your selfe haue con∣fessed the weakenes of your owne authorities, & yeelded them as vnsufficient to beare the weight of your conclusion, what other answere would you haue?* 1.1453

Phi.

Haue I dissabled mine owne proofes?

Theo.

Your owne conclusion you haue.

Phi.

Would you make me so madde?

Theo.

I thinke you were more sober then, than now. For then you ag••ised a trueth, and now you resist it againe.

Phi.

What did I agnise? Doe you thinke I was a sleepe, that I would con∣••u••e my sel••e?

Theo.

No the clearenes of trueth was such, that you could not shadowe the beames of it, and therefore in a brauerie you did admit it, though now you would to your owlelight againe.

Phi.

This is counsell to me: I know not what you mean.

Theo.

D••d you not confesse it to bee very true th••t in this sacrament the signes after consecration did carie the names and effects of the things them∣selues?

Phi.

Yeas, I did.

Theo.

Reca••t you that?

Phi.

I doe not.

Theo.

Then are the places, which you brought for the re••l eating of Christs fleshe with your mouthes and teeth, returned backe without your conclusi••n. For the signes which are called after consecration by the names of ••hrists bodie and blood,* 1.1454 do enter our mouthes, and passe our throates, the true fl••sh & bloud of christ do not, but ••re eaten at the Lords table only of the inward mā by faithful deu••tion and aff••cti••n preparing the hart that Christ may lodge there, & dw••ll there, where hee d••light••th, and not in the mouthes and ••awes of men which is no place for him, that sit••eth in heau••n, whither we must flie with the spirituall wings of our soules and spirites, before we can be pa••takers of him.

Phi.

You shall not so del••de me. The Rule •• granted was ve••y true: but how proue you that these speeches mu••t be so const••••ed?* 1.1455 In other cases it may be true, though not in this.

Theo.

If the Rule which I laide downe be very true, then your places can in••erre nothing, ••or so much as the wordes which you brought may be spoken as well of the signes, as of the things themselues: and in that case the promises receiuing a double cons••••uction, by your own con∣fess••on, how can your conclusion stand go••d, importing that sense which is not only most doubted, and least proued, but ••la••ly denied by the same fathers in o∣ther places, as I haue shewed?

Phi.

Tut••e: I will not be mocked wi••h such i••stes: you shall answer th••m place by place, as I cite them, or els I wil not speake one word more.

Theo.

You importune mee to spende time, which nowe waxeth short, but it will be the worse for your selfe: your egernes without trueth will be your owne dis∣credit: and the more pa••ticularly, the more plainly it will appeare.

Phi.

I haue * 1.1456 aduantages in their wordes against your euasion,* 1.1457 which I will not o∣mit.

Theo.

In Augustine,b 1.1458 Chrysostome, and Tertullian you haue vtterly none. Austen saith that in honour of so great a Sacrament (as this is) it hath pleased the holie Ghost, that (the sacred and sanctified bread) which after a sort is called the Lords bodie (though indeed it be the signe & Sacrament of his bodie•• should enter the mouth before other meats that s••••ue onely to feed & nourish ou•• flesh••. Chrysostome saith,* 1.1459 It is no small honour that our mouth hath gotten, by receiuing (the sanctified bread after consecrationd 1.1460 count••d worthy to be called) the Lords body (e 1.1461though the nature of bread still remain••) And indeed so is it no small both comfort and honour, that God hath vou••sa••ed to confirme and ••eale his mercies vnto vs with these elements, that are c••nuer∣ted into our f••••sh: to shew vs that we are as reallie inu••sted, & strengthned with his grace and ••rueth, as our bodies are nouris••ed and encreased with the s••gn••s and Sacraments of his grace. And to that end Tertullian saith, Our f 1.1462 fl••sh see∣deth on the (bread which g 1.1463 Christ called his) bodie (and hath in it the ••ff••cts of his body): that our soules might be replenished with God.

Phi.

These be your corrections o•• their speaches, they be not their intentions.

Theo.

Looke better to them, and you shall finde that I haue added no wordes but such as them selues in other places haue del••uered to declare their owne both meaning and speaking.

Phi.

The rest doe make for vs.

Theo.

Cyril saith nothing, but that as the soul hath faith and grace to clense it, and prepare it to eternall life: so h 1.1464 it was needfull that our rude and ••arthlie bodie should be brought to immortalitie by (corporal and earthlie) food (that) our bodies touching, tasting and feeding on creatures like themselues might take them as pledges of our resurrection.

Gregorie comparing the two Passeouers, the Iewes, and ours, and allu∣ding to the storie of theirs ••aith,i 1.1465 The blood (of our Passeouer) is sprinckled on both Posts, when it is drunke not onelie with the mouth of the bodie, (as the cup is, which after the manner of Sacramentes is the Communion of Christes bloode) but also with the mouth of the hart, (which is the true drin∣king of Christes blood).

Phi.

We will none of that, by your leaue: you must graunt that in * 1.1466 strict and precise speach according to the woordes, the blood of Christ is drunke by the mouth of the bodie, as well as by the mouth of the soule.

Theophil.

Hath the soule a mouth in strict and precise speach? or hath shee lips to drinke according to the letter?

Phi.

Would you make me such a foole as so to thinke?

Theo.

Then if one part of the sentence be figuratiue, why not the other? If that which hee doth most vrge, be not literall, why shal the letter be eracted in the harder and vnlikelier part of the comparison? If the whole be but an allusion, whie eract you that strictnes and precisenes of the speach in either part? It is not possible that one and the same thing should

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

be reallie drunke by the mouth of the bodie, and the mouth of the soul. If it be corporall, how can it enter the soul? If it be spirituall, how can it enter the mouth? And if those be Gregories wordes, which your own•• Lawe assigneth to him in the verie same homilie: his exposition shaketh your real presence, more than all the authorities, you can bring, shall settle it. k 1.1467 Quidam non improbabi∣liter exponunt hoc loco carnis & sanguinis veritatem, ipsam eorundem efficientiam, id est peccatorum remissionem. Some not amisse doe expound the trueth of Christes flesh and blood in this place to be the verie efficience of the same things: that is, the remission of sins. Take this construction with you, & bring out of Greg. or Leo, what you can, it wil not help the tight of a barely corne.

Phi.

S. Leo saith, l 1.1468 You ought so to communicate at the sacred table that you doubt nothing of the trueth of the bodie and blood of christ. Hoc enim ore sumitur, quod fide creditur & frustra ab illis Amen respondetur, à qui∣bus contra id quod accipitur disputatur. For * 1.1469 that is receiued with the mouth which is beleeued by our faith, and in vaine doe they answer Amen, which dispute against the thing that themselues receiue. O noble Lion, and such as all the heretikes in Europe will neuer encounter.

Theo.

You speake like a Li∣on, but the spite is your eares are too long to be taken for a beast of that metal. You foolishly peruert the meaning of Leo: and if you did but vnderstand the right course of his reason, you would suppresse both his voice and your vaunt for verie shame.

Phi.

He that will trust your sayings, shall haue manie false fiers, when he should not.

Theo.

And he that will credit your doings shall feele manie quick flames, when he would not.

Phi.

You be better at quipping, than at answe∣ring.

Theo.

You are lothe we should encroch on your common. But re∣turne to Leo. Can you tell against whome he wrote?

Phi.

Against such as you are, that denied the trueth of Christes bodie and blood in the Sacrament.

Theo.

Were they men without names, or names without men?

Phi.

Mock not: they were * 1.1470 your auncetours.

Theo.

They say it is a wise childe that knoweth his owne father. Doe you? But in sadnes whome did Leo traduce in that sermon?

Phil.

Mary Eutiches and such like heretikes.

Theoph.

You saie well: for Leo nameth him but a litle before in that sermon, and against his opinion he reasoneth.

Philand.

I am content with that.

Theoph.

What was his error?

Phi.

He denied the trueth of Christes bodie and blood in the Sacrament.

Theo.

Who told you so?

Phi.

I gather it by those that refute him.

Theo.

By them you shall learne his error: but this it was not.

Philan.

What was it, say you?

Theo.

Eutiches affirmed that Christes humane nature and substance was not onely glorified by his ascension, but consumed and turned into the nature & immensitie of his Godhead. Against him wrate Theodorete, Gelasius, and others: and one of the cheefest argumentes which they bring against him, is that which Leo here toucheth in a woorde or two.

Phi.

That argument cleane confoundeth your sacramentarie Sect.

Theo.

Yours or ours it must needes

confound:* 1.1471 for this it is. As the bread and wine after consecration are chan∣ged and altered into the bodie and bloud of Christ, so is the humane nature of Christ conuerted into his diuine after his resurrection & ascension: but the bread and wine are not changed neither in substance, nor forme, nor figure, nor natu∣rall proprieties, but only in grace and working: ergo Christs humane nature is not changed into his diuine EITHER IN SVBSTANCE, circumscrip∣tion, or forme, but only endewed with glory and immortalitie.

Phi.

This is no Catholike reason, but sauoreth altogether of your hereti∣call poison.

Theo.

They which first framed and vrged this reason against Eutiches, in your opinion were they heretikes?

Phi.

No father euer vsed it.

Theo.

If they did, must not they be doubbed for heretikes as the first proposers of that reason, or at least you for affirming now the quite contrarie? For you reiect both their assumption & conclusion against Eutiches as starke false, and whose ancetour then is Eutiches but yours?

Phi.

They do not vse it, as you report it.

Theo.

Looke you offspring of Eutiches, whether Gelasius, Theo∣doret and Augustine do not vrge it in those verie pointes and wordes which I repeate.

Thus Gelasius framed his reason against Eutiches. An image or simili∣tude of the bodie and bloud of Christ, is celebrated in the action of the my∣steries. It is therefore apparant and euident enough, that we must holde the same opinion of Christ the Lord, which we professe, celebrate and re∣ceiue in his image: That as those (signes) by the working of the holy Ghost passe into the diuine substance, and yet remaine in the proprietie of their owne nature: Euen so that verie principall mysterie it selfe, (whose force & truth (that Image) assuredly representeth) doth demonstrate one whole and true Christ,* 1.1472 to continue the (two natures) of which he consisteth, properlie remaining. And lest you should not vnderstand what he ment by this, The signes still abide in the proprietie of their owne nature: he expoundeth him∣selfe an saith, Non desinit esse substantia vel natura panis & vini. The substance or nature of bread and wine ceaseth not, or perisheth not.

When Theodoret had made an entrance to the very same reason by laying this foundation, Oportet archetypum Imaginis esse exemplar: the Originall must be answerable to the Image: the heretike caught the words out of his mouth and said: It hapned in good time, that you did mention the diuine mysteries: for euen thereby will I prooue the Lordes bodie to be chaunged into an o∣ther nature. As then the signes of the Lordes bodie and blood are other thinges before the inuocation of the Priest, but after they are chaunged and become other (than that they were:) so the Lords bodie after his assumption is chaunged into his diuine substance.* 1.1473

The maior being good, & such as Gelasius and Theoderet did both auouch; that as the signes were changed after consecration, so was Christes humanitie after his assumption: if your opinion had then beene taught in the church that the substance of bread and wine were changed by consecration, the conclusion

had beene infallible for Eutiches error, that the substance of Christes humanitie had beene changed by his ascention into his diuinitie: and not only both these Fathers had had their mouthes stopped, but Eutiches error had beene in••ol••∣ble, as beeing grounded on a Maior that was a confessed and famous trueth, and on a Minor that was (as you thinke, the vndoubted saith of the Church. Mary the Minor in deed was apparantly false, though you now defend it for Catholike Doctrine, and with the plaine deniall of that as a manifest vntrueth, Theodoret inferreth the contrarye:* 1.1474 that because neither the Substance, nor naturall proprieties of the bread and wine are chaunged by consecration, as the whole Church then beleeued and confessed: therefore neither the sub∣stance, nor shape, nor circumscription of Chris••es humane nature were changed by his ascention: but his body remaineth in the ••ame substance, quantitie, and forme, that he rose from death, and ascended vp withall: and with the very same forme and substance of flesh shall come to iudge the worlde. These are his wordes.

* 1.1475Thou art caught (saith Theodoret to the heretike) with the same nets that thou laiedst for others. The mysticall signes after sanctification doe not depart from their own nature. For they remanie in their former substance, and figure, and forme &c. Conferre then the Image with the originall and thou shalt see the likenes (betweene them). For the figure must be like to the trueth. That body (therefore of christ in heauen) hath his former shape and figure & circumscription, & to speake al at once, (his former) substance.

Lay all your heades together: a••d graunting the Maior (which the whole Church held) auoide the conclusion of Eutiches with••ut the denying the Minor as Theodoret did, (which yet is your faith and beleefe at this day) and we wil grant you to be Catholiks and our selues heretikes: If you cannot, see how far you be fallē from the doctrine of Christs church, and that in no lesse point than the greatest and chie••es•• Sacrament, on which you haue wickedly founded your adoration, oblation, halfe communion, priuate masse and barbarous pray∣ers, without example, without warrant of God or man.

Phi.

Theodoret hath set you vppe in your Ruffe, but I would you knew it: in this case we care neither for Theodoret, nor you: if that were his opinion, as it is yours.

Theo.

And who hath put you into your ruffe: that you not on∣ly despise that learned and auncient Bishoppe, but the whole Church in him, which then so beleeued, and you cannot auoide at this day, except you will bee Eutichians?

Phi.

The Maior is not altogether so s••und as you thinke it.

Theo.

Yet did Gelasius and Theodoret confound that error with that comparison:* 1.1476 and S. Augustine long before th••m did vrge the same. This is it that wee say, this is it that by all meanes we labour to confirme, (to witte) that the Sa∣crifice of the Church consisteth of two things: the visible kinde of ele∣mentes, and the inuisible flesh and bloud of our Lord Iesus Christ: the Sa∣crament, and the thing of the SACRAMENT: euen as the person

of Christ consisteth of God and man;* 1.1477 for so much as euery thing containeth the nature and trueth of those things of which it consisteth. By which rule it is certaine there mus•• be in the sacrament the nature, tru••th and substance of bread and wine, euen as in Christes person either nature hath his trueth and substance, without confusion or distraction.

Phi.

We haue fathers to the contrary, if the time did serue to produce them, as anon I will: In the meane while what is this to Leo?

Theophil.

Leo in few words abbridgeth the sum•• of this reason: and saith the followers of Euti∣ches doe in vaine with their mouthes rece••ne the Sacrament, since with their hartes they doe not beleeue the t••ueth of Christs humane nature: and answer Amē to no purpose, so long as they dispute against that, which they would se••m to enioye by receiuing the seale and pledge thereof in the church with others.

Phi.

This is your Commentarie bes••des the text: his wordes are, The selfe same (bodie) which wee beleeue with faith,* 1.1478 is receiued with mouth. Which you cannot interprete to be m••ant of the bread. For the breade is not beleeued with hart: and against the trueth of Christs bodie, not against the bread did the followers of Eutiches dispute.

Theo.

Doth Leo ••aie the sel•• same (bodie)?

Phi.

He saith Hoc ore sumitur quod fide creditur: that is receiued with the mouth, which with (our) faith is beleeued, and that cannot be the bread.

The.

Much lesse maie it be the natural bodie of Christ. For then Leo had migh∣tilie confirmed, & not confuted Eutiches opinion. His error was that the huma∣nitie of christ after his ascension was swallowed vp of his diuinitie, and so chan∣ged that it was now no naturall bodie. Against this if Leo should haue oppos••d your reall presence in the Sacrament where Christs body is without quantity,* 1.1479 shape, circumscription, distinction of partes and all other conditions of a natu∣rall body: he had beene a Proctour ••or Eutiches impiety, not a confuter of it. Neither could Eutiches hims••lfe haue wished a better defence for his heresie than the confess••on ••f such a bod••e as you imagine in the sacrament, and therfore you ha••k that HOC ilfauouredly, when you make Leo rather a consenter with Eutiches, than a disprouer of him, with your fantasticall presence: which is an approbation and no refutation of Eutiches error.

Phil.

What a slander this is, that the reall presence should be a refuge for Eutich••s error?

Theoph.

Such a slaunder as with all your cunning you shall neuer wipe awaie.

Phi.

Doe we not affirme the * 1.1480 substance of Chris••es hu∣mane flesh to be in the Sacrament?

The.

Such a substance, as Eutiches him selfe imagined, hauing neither proportion of shape, nor position of parts, nor re∣pletion of place, nor anie condition incident to a naturall bodie: but the godly fathers were farre from vrging such a substance against Eutiches. They pres∣sed him with the bodilie shape, circumscription, extension, and perfe••••ion of Christes flesh, as well in all other requisites as in substance: and to prooue this amongst other arguments, they brought, as I haue shewed, the Sacra∣ment for a resemblance and demonstrance of both natures in Chris••: that as the bread after consecration keepeth his quantity, quality, shape and substance, not∣withstanding

it be vnited, and annexed to the heauenly grace, that worketh in the sacrament: so the bodie of Christ after his assumption retaineth his former perfection, proportion, figure and substance, loosing no poin•••• nor part of his humane nature, but only replenished with immortall glorie.

* 1.1481This must be Leoes Hoc, if he will do any good with alleaging the Sacra∣ment against Eutiches, as I haue proued by Austen, Gelasius and Theodoret: Otherwise if he do but mention your real presence he openeth the gappe and le∣uelleth the way to Eutiches furie, and runneth headlong against the rest of his fellow seruants and successours, that vsed the same argument to confute Eu••i∣ches with a manifest contradiction of your reall presence.

Phi.

I bring you Leoes wordes.

Theo.

Leoes wordes haue nothing in them to crosse that sense which I establish. Hoc signifieth any thing, and hath no relation to Christes flesh in the sacrament: but to the proportion rather betweene Christ & the sacrament: in that they beleeued no other thing of Christ than they saw with their eyes, & receiued with their mouths in the Sacrament; to wit, the perfect shape & substance of bread after Consecration: & consequently they must holde the same opinion of Christs humanitie after his ascension.

Phi.

If you vse this trade: you may peruert all the fathers writings, and make what sense you list to their sayings.

Theo.

Peruert them no more than we doe, and you shall neuer euert the maine doctrine as you haue doone. We measure ••heir wordes by their owne warrant, and suffer n••t a phrase here and there, which may bee well reuoked to their rules, to vndermine the chiefe grou••des of their faith.

Phi.

No more doe we.

Theo.

Why then rage you, to heare v•• say, that these few places, which you haue brought for eating christs bodie with your mouthes and iawes, may be referred to the signes called by those names, as well as to the things themselues?

Phi.

You take vpon you to bee Iudges and to pronounce at your pleasures, when the word••s shall belong to the one, and when to the other: so that no father shall say any thing against your heresie, but yet will by and by turne it and wind it I knowe not whither.

Theo.

Nothing more hindereth the search for trueth than a desire to lye. We shew you the general admonition of the fathers themselues, that after con∣secration they call the visible signes no longer by their woonted names, but by the names of those things whose signes they are, and whose vertues they haue. This Rule we say is then to take place, when the speach which we find in a fa∣ther, if it should be referred to the things themselues, would be both absurd, and repugnant to the rest of his Doctrine and to himselfe in other places. This is not to turne the fathers whither we will, but to take heede we fall not into the pitte, which they * 1.1482 warne vs to auoide.

Phi.

If you would neuer vse that rule but in that case, you were not so much to be blamed: marie your pretences bee verie faire when your perfourmances be farre vnlike.

Theo.

Doe you lacke eyes to see, or tongues to speake when we tread awrie?

Phi.

Trust to it: wee doe not.

The.

We would not you should. Our dealing in Religion must be such

as not only you may not ••••spr••••••, but God may nor dis••ike.

Phi.

Th••s sh••••••ng and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of Fathers, neither God nor man can like.

Theo.

A lower sai••e were ••••••er ••or your sm••ll bott••m: 〈…〉〈…〉 you gath••r so much wind and weather that yo•• can neuer g••t ••o sho••re.

Phi.

••ou speake pa∣rables.

Theo.

•• can 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••n••erprete. The ••••ni••y o•• your 〈…〉〈…〉 o•• your harts is such, that you can not so••e••ly discusse and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 any 〈◊〉〈◊〉

Phi.

Who can ••e ••a••ent, and see so much 〈◊〉〈◊〉 pl••y ••••••ered?

Theo.

〈…〉〈…〉 to t••ke w••••g, wh••••soeu••r you be to offer 〈◊〉〈◊〉.

Phi.

••s 〈…〉〈…〉?

The.

You must t••l vs what, before we can redr••ss•• it.

Phi.

I alleaged six•• Fathers to proue, that the fl••sh of Chr••s•• is eaten in the sac••ament corporally with our mouthe••. You come in with a new trick of Tren••hmore, & tel vs they spa•• of the signes ca••led by t••ose names after consecration, not of ••he things the••selues.

Theo.

Is this such wrong?

Phi.

I promise you it * 1.1483 moueth me to the very hart to see you so delude them.

Theo.

I blame you not. You thought you had some great hold in the Fathers for your corporal•• eating of Christ with your teeth: and I remember you would burn all to your shirt if euer they were answered:* 1.1484 and now the w••ight of them is seene, they are but gr••sse mystakinges, if not peruertinges of the Fathers: and you must seeke for an other pedegree. Your real coue••ing of Christ with the shewes of bread and wine, and corporall eating him with your teeth hath no de∣duction from ••he ancient Fathers.

Phi.

If you may be suffered to gloze them, as you doe.

Theophil.

Howe often must I tell you, it is their owne gloze, and not mine?

Philand.

The rule is theirs, but why doe you applie it to these places?

Theo.

I haue tolde you that also, because they shoulde otherwise contradict both themselues, and others.* 1.1485

Phil.

Contradict? why?

T••eophil.

The selfe same Fathers a••ouch, that the fleshe of Christ entereth not the bodie, is not bitten with teeth, filleth not the bellie: they say it is not pietie to eate him with teeth: wee must not prepare teeth, iawes, or bellies for him: your owne ••awe sayeth: hee descendeth not into the stomacke, and the West church for 800. yeares conf••ssed that Christ is not corporally ta∣ken of vs, not chamme•• with teeth, not swallowed with iawes, not clo∣sed in the compasse of the bell••e, our Sauiour himselfe decideth that nothing can enter both the heart and the bellie: and that the fleshe of Chr••st ente∣r••th the heart, and feedeth the soule, he c••n be no christian that doubteth. This apparent negatiue not w••thstanding, when they sometimes, trea••ing of other m••tters, happen to say, Our mouth receiueth the body of Christ: the substance of our flesh is increased and consisteth o•• his bodie and blood: you would haue vs interprete these sayings of the very same things wh••ch they de∣nied to passe that way, and not of the signes, which in the perpetuall vse of speech amongest all Diuines after consecration were called by th••se names and none other: & leauing their own direction which they giue vs, to charge them with a flat contradiction, and hay••ous assertion as themselues ag••ise: if the

letter bee vrged, and the speech not mollified with a spiritual and mysticall ex∣position.

Phi.

Nay Sir, wee doe not say, that the substaunce of our fleshe is in∣creased or consisteth of Christes bodie and blood: that were a wicked as∣sertion in deede, the body of Christ is glorious and impassible: and not reallie mixed with our flesh, much lesse conuerted into the substaunce of our bodies: as that speech importeth.

Theo.

But yet the Fathers that affirme the one, af∣firme the other, and certaine it is that nourishing is the principall ende of ea∣ting:* 1.1486 so that eating the flesh of Christ is vtterly superfluous, if wee bee not therby norished.

Phi.

Our souls are norished, not our bodies, with that heauenly food.

Theo.

Then must our souls eate it, & not our bodies.

Phi.

Our bodies eat it, that our soules may be nourished by it.

Theo.

Eating, digesting and nourish∣ing be consequent and coherent actions: and therefore they must all three be ei∣ther corporall, or spirituall. If the soule be nourished, the soule must eate, & digest that which is eaten. If the body eat, the body must digest and be norished by that food.

Phi.

Would * 1.1487 you haue our bodies norished & substantially increased with the flesh of Christ?

Theop.

The Fathers I say auouch the one, as well as the other: If then you can expounde the one, why doe you peruert the other?

Phi.

What doe they auouch?

Theophil.

That the substance of our flesh is in∣creased, and consisteth of the bodie and blood of Christ.

Philand.

Proue that. By your leaue I thinke you vse multiplication with the Fa∣thers.

Theop.

Then when I produce them, I trust you will come foorth with your diuision.

Philand.

Let mee heare them.

Theophil.

You shall.

Iustinus, a 1.1488 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The foode sanctified, (of which our blood & flesh are nourished by conuersion) we are taught to be the flesh & blood of that Iesus which took our flesh on him. Ireneus, b 1.1489 Quomodo d••cunt carnem in corruptionem deuenire, & non percipere vitam, quae à cortore Domini & sanguine alitur? How say they that our flesh shall perish and not be partaker of life, since it is nourished of the verie bodie and blood of our Lord? And again, c 1.1490 Fit Eucharistia corporis & sanguinis Christi, ex quibus angetur & co••sist••t carnis nostrae substantia. There is made the Eucharist of the bodie and blood of Christ: of which the substaunce of our fleshe is increased, and consi∣steth. And therefore hee concludeth: d 1.1491 Quomodo negart carnem cap••cem esse donationis Dei, qui est vita aeterna, quae corpore & sanguine Christi ••••tritur. How doe they deny our flesh to bee capable of the gift of God who is eter∣nal life, since it is * 1.1492 no••••shed of the body & blood of Christ. And after so Chry∣sostome.

Phi.

Repeate no more. If I beleeue not this: that which cōmeth after, what∣soeuer it be, will not preuaile.

Theo.

How think you? must this be referred to the naturall & true body & blood of Christ, or else to the signes bearing those names

when once they bee sanctified?

Philand.

No doubt to the fignes.

Theop.

And were it not open madnesse to auouch it to bee really true of the thinges themselues whose signes those are?

Philand.

It were.

Theophil.

Why then, since corporall eating serueth only for corporall nourishing,* 1.1493 and hath a continuall and naturall coherence with it, doe you confesse the trueth in the later, and not as well in the former part of that action? why doe you not ex∣pound them both alike?

Philand.

To say the immortall fleshe of Christ is conuerted and turned into the quantitie and substaunce of our mortall flesh, is an horrible heresie.

Theophil.

And so say that his fleshe is eaten with our mouthes and ••awes, & l••••th in our stomacks, is the verie pathway & right in∣troduction to that heresie, or at least to as brutish and grosse an erour as that is.

Philand.

The Fathers affirme that his body is eaten with our mouthes.

Theophil.

And so they affirme,* 1.1494 that his bodie and blood doe increase and augment the substaunce of our mortall and sinnefull bodies.

Phi∣land.

But that can not bee.

Theophil.

No more can the other.

Philand.

Howe shall our bodies rise at the last day, if Christes body bee not in them?

Theophil.

Our resurrection dependeth not on the act of eating his flesh, but of nourishing our fleshe with his, as Ireneus telleth vs: and the thinges which wee eate, are not the causes, but as the great Nicene councell admonisheth, the pledges of our resurrection: Their words be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: we must beleeue, these to bee the signes or pledges of our resurrection.

Philand.

S. Chrysostom earnestly inforceth the eating of Christs flesh. And sayth wee doe not onely eate it, but euen c 1.1495 * fasten our teeth in his fleshe.

Theo.

In deede hee saith so, but if you did not auert both your eyes, and eares from the trueth, you would perceiue by that verie sentence, both the maner of his & other Fathers speeches of that Sacrament, and the right intent of their Do∣ctrine in those cases. His wordes are, f 1.1496 Non se tantum videri permittens: deside∣rantibus, sed & tangi, & manducari, & dentes carni suae infigi, & desiderio sui om∣nes impleri. Christ suffering himselfe not only to bee seene of those that are desirous, but to bee touched, and eaten, and our teeth to bee fastned in his flesh, and all to be satisfied of their longing after him?

Phi.

Lord, me thinketh these words be verie plain words. He suffereth our teeth to bee fastned in his fleshe▪

Theo.

Uerie plaine they bee, but very false also, vnlesse you either take the flesh of Christ for the signe called by that name: or else referre teeth, and biting to the soule and faith of the ••••ward man a•• wel as you do the eyes & hands wherewith we see him & touch him.

Phi.

Look what an ••••••sion you haue since gotten.

Theo.

Nay looke what a subuersion of all truth and saith you be since fallen to.

Phi.

Doth not this Father say, wee fasten our teeth in his flesh?

Theo.

Doeth hee not also say, We see him with our eyes & touch him with our handes?

Phi.

That is referred to our faith: as S. Ambrose teacheth. * 1.1497 Fide Christus videtur, side Christus tangitur. By faith

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

Christ is seene, by fayth Christ is touched.

Theoph.

And why shall not the next (which is more vnlikely to bee true,) bee referred to faith as well as the former? Sainct Ambrose likewise saying,h 1.1498 Comedat te cor meū: panis sancte, panis viue, panis munde, veni in cor meum, intra in animam meam. Let mine heart eate thee: O holy bread, O liuing bread, O pure-bread, come into my heart, enter into my soule; and Cyprian calling it i 1.1499 the proper no∣rishment of the spirite: besides infinite others that for a thowsande yeares taught that doctrine in the church of God & not your gutturall eating of Christ with teeth and iawes.

Phi.

* 1.1500Was your maner of eating Christes fleshe which you defende in the sa∣crament, taught in the church for a thowsande yeares?

Theop.

Euen ours was: and when yours came first to be proposed, your schoolemen ran euery man his way, fighting and scratching one an other ••ho should fal fastest and farthest from the truth.

Philand.

Blush you not to auouch two such monsterous lies?

Theop.

A lyar will easily suspect any man, as knowing him-selfe to delight in lies: but GOD bee thanked, that lyes with you bee truethes with vs, and with all that haue any knowlegde of GOD or care of his truth. The things which I affirmed be manifest truethes, and such as you will blush at for verie shame, if you be not sworne to your holie Fa∣ther against Christ, as well as you bee against your Prince.

Origen commenting vppon these wordes of the Supper, this is my bo∣die, this is my blood: k 1.1501 this breade, sayeth hee, (which Christ) confes∣seth to bee his bodie, is the worde that nourisheth our soules: and this drinke which hee confesseth to bee his blood, is the worde that moy∣steneth and passinglie cheereth the heartes of such as drinke it. Thou which art come vnto Christ, l 1.1502 sticke not in the blood of (his) fleshe, but rather learne the blood of (his) worde, and heare him saying to thee, this is my blood, which shall bee shedde for the remission of your sinnes. m 1.1503 Hee that is partaker of the mysteries knoweth the flesh and blood of the worde of God. For the bread is the word of righ∣teousnesse, which our soules eating are nourished with: and the drink is the worde of the knowledge of Christ according to the mysterie of his birth and death. The blood of the Testament is poured into our heartes for the remission of (our) sinnes. Athanasius, n 1.1504 Howe fewe men woulde his bodie haue sufficed, that this shoulde bee the foode of the whole worlde? Yea therefore doeth bee warne them of his as∣cension into heauen that he might drawe him from thinking on his bodie, and they thereby learne, that the flesh, which he spake of, was celestiall meate from aboue, and spirituall nourishment to bee giuen by him. The (wordes) which I spake to you are spirite and life, which is as much as if hee had sayde: this (bodie) which is in your sight and dely∣uered (to death) for the worlde, shall bee giuen you for meate, that

it may bee * 1.1505 spiritually distributed in euery one of you, and be an assuraunce and preseruatiue to raise you to eternall life. Cyprian writing of the Lordes Supper, o 1.1506 Eating and drinking, saieth hee, bee referred to the one and same end: with the which, as the substance of our bodies is increased and preserued, so the life of the spirite is maintained with his proper nourish∣ment. What foode is to the fleshe, that faith is to the soule: what meate is to the body, that the worde is to the spirite, working euerlastingly with a more excellent vertue that which bodily meates doe for a time and vn∣till a season. Ambrose approaching to the sacred communion which you intitle a prayer preparing to Masse, amongest other thinges speaketh thus to Christ himselfe. p 1.1507 Thou Lord saydst with thine holy and blessed mouth, the bread which I will giue, is my fleshe (giuen) for the life of the world. Hee that eateth mee, shall liue through mee, hee abideth in mee, and I in him. I am the liuing bread which came downe from heauen, if any man eate of this bread hee shall liue for euer. Most delightful bread heale thou the tast of my heart, that I may feele the sweetenesse of thy loue. Let mine heart eate thee, and with thy present relesse let the bowels of my soule bee replenished. Angels eate thee with full mouth, let man that is a pilgrime (on earth) eate thee as his weakenesse will suffer him, that hee faint not in the way, hauing this prouision for his iourney. Holy bread, liuing bread, beautifull bread which camest from heauen and giuest life to the worlde, come into my heart, and clense mee from all filth of flesh and spirit. En∣ter into my soule, heale and sanctifie me within and without.

No man earnester in this point than S. Austenq 1.1508 This visible bread confir∣meth the stomack, confirmeth the bellie. There is an other bread which con¦firmeth the hart, because it is the bread of the hart. There is a wine that doth rightly cheere the hart & can do nothing but cheere the hart.* 1.1509 Therfore vn∣derstand so of the bread, as thou doest of the wine, inwardly hūger, inwardly thirst: blessed are they which hunger & thirst after righteousnes, for they shal be satisfied. That breade is righteousnes: that wine is righteousnesse, is trueth: and Christ is the trueth. I am saieth hee the liuing bread which came from heauen: and, I am the vine, you are but braunches. r 1.1510 To beleeue in him, this is to eate the liuing bread, hee that beleeueth ea∣teth. Man is inuisibly fedde, because hee is inuisibly regenerated. He is inwardly (in soule) a babe, inwardly (in minde) renewed. (Looke) in * 1.1511what part man is newe borne, in that part is hee fedde. The (vnbeleeuing) Iewes were farre from this heauenly breade, neither knewe they howe to hunger for it: the iawes of their hearts were dull, and this bread requireth the hunger of the inward man. Take heed brethren: eate you this heauenly bread spiritually, bring innocencie to the altar. s 1.1512 Eate life, and drinke life. For then is the bodie and blood of the Lord life to each man, when that which is visiblie taken in the Sacrament, is in very trueth spiritually eaten, spiritually drunken, t 1.1513 When Christ is eaten, life is eaten; neither when wee

eate him, doe wee make peeces of him. In deede in the Sacrament it is so: and the faithfull knowe howe they eate the fleshe of Christ: euerie man taketh his peece. Wherefore grace it selfe is termed peeces. Christ is eaten by peeces in the sacrament, and yet hee remaineth whole in hea∣uen, hee remayneth whole in thine heart. * 1.1514 Prouide not your iawes, but your heart. Thence is this Supper commended. Beholde wee be∣leeue in Christ, wee receiue him with our fayth. In taking wee know what wee should thinke: wee take him but a litle, and our heart is re∣plenished. Macarius, x 1.1515 In the church is offered breade and wine the samplar of his body and blood, and they which are partakers of the vi∣sible breade, doe spiritually eate the Lordes fleshe. Emissenus, * 1.1516 When thou goest vppe to the reuerende Altar to bee filled with spirituall meats, by fayth beholde, honour and wonder at the sacred bodie and bloode of thy God: touch it with thy mynde: take it with the * 1.1517 hand of thyne heart, and chiefely prouide that the * 1.1518 inwarde manne swallowe the whole.

This Doctrine continued eight hundreth yeares after Christ. Bertram then liuing is witnesse sufficient. a 1.1519The bodie and blood of Christ, if thou consider the outward appearance, is a * 1.1520 creature subiect to mutation and corruption: but if thou waigh the vertue of the mysterie, it is life per∣forming immortalitie to those that receiue it. b 1.1521 As touching the visible crea∣ture (the mysteries) feed the body, but by the vertue of a mightier substance, they feede & sanctify the soules of the faithful. c 1.1522 What we should eat & what we should drinke the holy Ghost expresseth by the Prophet. Tast and see howe sweete the Lord is. Doeth that breade corporally tasted, or that wine sipped, shewe howe sweete the Lorde is? whatsoeuer tast that hath, it is corporall and pleaseth the iawes. Hee doeth therefore inuite vs to vse the relesse of our spirituall tast, & in that breade and drinke to dreame of no corporall thing, but to conceiue all to bee spirituall. d 1.1523 This meate confirmeth our heart, and this drinke cheereth the heart of man, sayeth the Prophet. By the which it is euident, that nothing in this meate, no∣thing in this drinke must bee corporally taken, but the whole spiritual∣lie considered. For the soule which is ment by mans heart in this place, is not fedde with corporall meate or drinke: but is refreshed and nourished with the worde of God. e 1.1524 Faith beleeueth that, which is not seene: and spiritually feedeeth the soule, and cheereth the heart, and giueth eter∣nall life, whiles wee marke, not that which feedeth the bodie, * 1.1525 not that which is pressed with teeth, not that which is brused in peeces: but that which is spiritually taken with faith. * 1.1526 For this is a spirituall foode, and a spirituall drinke, spiritually feeding the soule.

Paschasius commeth after Bertram in age, but ioyneth with him in the same confession of trueth. g 1.1527 The diuine mysteries our inwarde man recei∣ueth through the grace of Christ with vnderstanding, and by them is hee

made one bodie with Christ through the power of faith. h 1.1528 The fleshe and blood of Christ, because they bee thinges spirituall, are fullie receiued by fayth and vnderstanding. i 1.1529 It is not lawfull to eate Christ with teeth. k 1.1530Christ is the meate of Angels, and this Sacrament is truely his fleshe, and his blood, which (fleshe and blood) man eateth and drinketh spirituallie. And so by * 1.1531 what food the Angels liue, by that also man liueth: because in this that man receiueth, all is diuine and spirituall. Wee drinke spiri∣tually, and wee eate the spirituall flesh of Christ in which is beleeued to bee eternall life. l 1.1532 All that wee eate is spirituall. m 1.1533 The power of faith and vnderstanding, which doubteth nothing of Christ, doeth tast, and re∣lesse the whole spiritually. n 1.1534 Otherwise but for faith and vnderstanding, what finde they, which tast these thinges, besides breade and wine? o 1.1535 The visible quantitie must not bee esteemed in this mysterie, but the power of the spirituall Sacrament. Wee must not respect howe much (of the quantitie) is pressed with our teeth, but how much is receiued through faith and loue. Therefore my sonne when thou commest to the participation of this mysterie, * 1.1536 OPEN THE BOSOM OF THY MINDE, cleanse thy conscience, and receiue thou not what a morsell con∣taineth, but AS MVCH AS THY FAITH APPREHENDETH.

Fulbertus a thousand yeres after Christ treadeth the same path.p 1.1537 That which appeared outwardly to be the substance of breade and wine is nowe made the bodie and blood of Christ * 1.1538 inwardly. Tast therefore, and see howe sweete the meate is, but learne before what manner of tast it hath. It bea∣reth the tast of Angels foode, hauing in it a mysticall and pleasaunt re∣lesse, which thou canst not discerne with thy mouth, but mayest vn∣derstande with thine inwarde affection. Holde readie the * 1.1539 mouth of thy fayth, open the iawes of hope, stretch out the bowels of loue, and take the breade of life (which is) the nourishment of the inwarde man: Tast I saie the sweetenesse of this heauenly banquette, but lothe the smatche of the earthlie fruites. For from the faith of the inwarde man commeth the tasting of the diuine iuyce, whiles by the taking of the healthful Eucharist, CHRIST FLOWETH INTO THE BOWELS OF THE SOVLE OF THE RECEAVER, AND THE RELI∣GIOVS MINDE ADMITTETH HIM INTO HER CHAST AND INNERMOST ROOMES.

There shall neede no long discourse to proue that these Catholike Fa∣thers teach in the Lordes Supper a spirituall kinde of eating the fleshe of Christ by faith and vnderstanding,* 1.1540 as wee doe: not a corporall with teeth and iawes, as you doe: The places bee manie, the wordes plaine: you can not shift them vnlesse you will desperatly take fleshe for spirite, bo∣die for soule, chamming for beleeuing, earth for heauen, yea a dumme and dead creature for the liuing and euerlasting sonne of God: which were not one∣ly sensible blindnesse, but in excusable madnes.

Phi.

The spiritual eating wee doe not deny, but we * 1.1541 adde to that a corporall, because the soul may bee partaker of Christ by faith, notwithstanding the mouth receiue the very flesh of Christ vnder the formes of bread and wine.

Theo.

This is your onely refuge that is left: and this will not helpe you. For examine this answere a while, and you shall soone see the weakenesse of it. My flesh is true∣ly meate,* 1.1542 saith Christ, and my blood is truely drinke. Hee that doubteth of this, we holde him accursed, you doe the like: thus farre we agree. Mary for what part of man, soule or bodie, this meate was prouided, in this we dissent. You say for the body, no lesse than for the soule: wee say for the soule, and not for the body. So saide Chrysostome before vs. This meate feedeth not the body, but the soule. So saide Ambrose.q 1.1543 It is no bodilie, but Ghostlie meate. So said Augustine: Prepare not your iawes, but your harts: thence is this super commended: so saide Cyprian, This is r 1.1544 the proper nourishment of the spirit, and not common to the flesh. Now that which is eaten is meate. And therefore if Christ bee no meate for the bodie, but onely for the soule, as∣suredly Christ is not eaten of our bodies, but of soules only.

s 1.1545Next you confesse that the mortall and sinnefull bodies of men may not bee substantially nourished with the glorious and immortall flesh of Christ: and eating is altogither in vaine (euen of the flesh of Christ it selfe) without norish∣ing,t 1.1546 & al the fathers with one consent teach this to be the end of caring the fleshe of Christ,* 1.1547 that we should be thereby norished to life eternal. Why then striue you for a corporal eating where your selues dare not defend any corporal norishing? Why distract you eating frō norishing, by referring them, one to the body, & the other to the soule, which the Fathers alwayes ioyned & applied to one & the self same part of man? Many mothers, saith Chrysost. deliuered their infants whē they are born to other norces: which he would not do, but norisheth vs with his own body. And in the same place where he saith, u 1.1548 Ipsum vides, ipsum tangis, ipsum comedis, thou seest him, thou touchest him, thou eatest him: addeth, y 1.1549 Ea nam{que} re nos alimur quam Angeli videntes tremunt. For we are nourished with that thing, which the Angels tremble when they behold. And so the rest of the Fathers call it not onely meate to eate,x 1.1550 but (* 1.1551 nutrimentum & z 1.1552 alimoniam) norishment & food, to keepe the receiuer in plight and good liking. So that that part of man doth not eat the fleshe of Christ, which is not norished with it: And since you dare not auouch that our bodies are really nourished with the flesh of Christ, why shoulde you hold that our mouthes do reallie eate him?

Lastly with what one meate can you fit both the bodies and soules of men? That which entereth the body must bee locall and corporall.z 1.1553 That which feedeth the soule must bee spirituall and intellectuall. The soule hath no locall receites, nor corporall instrumentes for her kinde of eating, but onely faith and vnderstanding.* 1.1554 So that if the fleshe of Christ in this mysterie bee materiall and locall, how canne it feede the soule? If it bee spirituall and intellectuall, howe can it bee chammed with teeth, or closed in the streites of the stomack? Local not local, corporal not corporal be plaine con∣tradictions,

and by no meanes incident to the naturall flesh of Christ. One it must needs be, both it cannot be: though you would sweate out your hearts with wrangling.

And that Christ is not eaten with teeth or mouth,* 1.1555 the Ghospell in plaine wordes auoucheth with vs. Whosoeuer eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud hath eternall life: my flesh is meat indeed, my bloud is drinke in deed: hee that eateth my fleshe, and drinketh my bloud, dwelleth in me, and I in him, saith our Sauiour. The wicked liue not by Christ, neither abide in Christ, and therefore by the verie determination of the Lorde him-self, they neither eate his flesh, nor drinke his bloude. Runne nowe to your distinction of corporall and spirituall eating when you will, but so long as these wordes stand written in the Ghospell, he that eateth me, euen he shall liue by me: the Godly will soone conclude, that SVCH AS LIVE NOT BY CHRIST, DOE NOT EATE CHRIST:* 1.1556 and so that corporall eating of Christes flesh, which you would erect, common to the faithfull and faithlesse, to be no kind of eating at al, notwithstanding they receiue the materi∣all and external elementes of this mysterie.

Phi.

In spite of all your places and proofes,* 1.1557 there is a Sacramentall eate∣ing of Christs flesh, with mouth and iawes, besides your spirituall eating it with faith and spirite: which you could not doe vnlesse it were really present: & therefore you doe not well to beguile the simple in this sort with refuting one trueth by an other, whereas the fathers confessed both.

Theo.

In spite of all your late deuises & euasions, the flesh of Christ is not truely eaten with Caper∣nites teeth or Iesuits iawes: neither do the fathers auouch any such thing, saue in that sense which I last declared, that the signes so called are eaten of the wic∣ked with their mouthes and throates: but of the flesh it selfe and bloud of Christ, they plainly affirme the contrarie.

S. Augustine expounding the wordes of our sauiour, hee that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud, remaineth in me and I in him: saith, g 1.1558 Ostendit quid sit non Sacramento tenus, sed reuera manducare corpus Christi, & eius sangui∣nem bibere. (The Lord) sheweth what it is to eate the flesh of christ & drinke his bloud: not by way of a sacrament, but in deede. As if he had said, hee that remaineth not in me, and in whom I doe not (likewise) remaine, let him neuer say nor thinke that he eateth my flesh or drinketh my bloud. That which here he calleth Sacramento tènus, before in the same Chapter hee called solo Sacramento: opposing against it, reuera mānducare, & prouing that neither heretikes, nor wicked Christians do in deede eate the bodie of Christ, but only the Sacrament, that is the sacred signe of his bodie. e 1.1559 They rightly vnderstand that he must not be said to eate the bodie of christ, which is not in the body of christ: as heretikes be not, and of wicked liuers, though they keepe in the Church, he saith, f 1.1560 Nec isti dicendi sunt manducare corpus Christi quia nec in membris computandi sunt Christi. Neither are these (that liue wickedly) to bee saide to eate the bodie of christ, since they must not be counted the mem∣bers

of Christ.

Phi.

Not spiritually but Sacramentally they do eate the bo∣die of Christ, though they be wicked: and so Sainct Augustine teacheth.

Theo.

Keepe the wordes and sense which S. Augustine hath, & you shall be free from this error, which now you are in. h 1.1561 He that remaineth not in Christ, and in whom Christ abideth not, without all doubt doth not spiritually eate his fleshe, nor drinke his bloud, though carnally and visibly he presse with his teeth the Sacrament of Christs bodie and bloud. Sacramentall eating is the carnall and visible pressing with teeth the Sacrament of Christes bodie and bloud: it is not the reall eating of Christ himselfe.

Phi.

The Sacrament is Christ we say.

Theo.

But so said not Sainct Augustine. He diligently distinguisheth, Sacramentum & rem Sacramenti: the Sacrament and the thing (which is the other part) of the Sacrament, interpreting the Sacrament to be i 1.1562 Sacrum Signum: a sacred Signe: and the thing it selfe to be the bodie of Christ. The k 1.1563 Sacrifice of the Church consisteth of two (parts) Sacrament•• & re Sacramenti, id est corpore Christi: of the sacrament, & the thing of the Sa∣crament, which is the bodie of Christ. There is therefore the Sacrament, & the thing of the Sacrament, to witte, the body of Christ.

Of the Sacrament, he saith. l 1.1564 It is receiued at the Lordes table of some to life, of some to destruction. Res vero ipsa, cuius & Sacramentum est, omni homini ad vitam, nulli ad exitium quicunque eius particeps fuerit: But the thing it selfe, whereof that is a Sacrament, (is receiued) of all men to life, and of none to death whosoeuer is partaker of it. The rest ioyne with him in that assertion. m 1.1565 (Heretikes) saith Hierom, doe not eate his fleshe whose fleshe is the meate of the faithfull. n 1.1566 Whosoeuer, saith Ambrose, eateth this bread, he shall not die for euer, and it is the bodie of Christ. o 1.1567 None is partaker of this lambe, saith Cyprian, that is not a right Israelite. p 1.1568 The worde, saith Origen, was made fleshe, and true meate: the which whosoeuer eateth shall liue for euer, Quem nullus malus potest edere, whom no wicked person can eate. The Sacraments, that is the sacred signes of Christes bodie and bloude the wicked doe eate: Christ him-selfe they doe not. And why? The Sacraments are carnally pressed with teeth, which they are partakers of as well as the Godlie; but Christ him-selfe is not eaten with teeth, and therefore the wicked wanting both spirite and faith by which he is receiued, cannot possibly eate his fleshe, or drinke his bloud: though they come to his table neuer so often.

Phi.

If Christ be really contained in the visible Sacrament, how can they receiue it, but they must receiue him also?

Theo.

If hee were locally and substantially there inclosed, it could not be auoided, but receiuing the one into their mouthes, they must needs also receiue the other into the same passage: but because neither he is eaten with teeth, nor entereth the bodies of the wicked, (as where hee abydeth not,) therefore wee rightly conclude that hee is not corporally couered with the accidentes of bread and wine, as you grossely conceiue.

Phi.

The lambe of God lieth on the Altar, by the very profession of the first Nicene Councel:q 1.1569 we aske you now where and how, if not vnder the forms of bread and wine?

Theo.

The best handfast you haue in fathers or Councels for this cause, is a few speeches wrested and forced from the inward man to the outward, & from the soul which they ment, to the bodie, which you vrge: thereby to settle your reall and bodily presence, but all in vaine. For as we doubt not that Christ is alwaies present on his table in trueth,* 1.1570 grace, vertue, and effect, if we open the eyes of our faith to beholde him, and mouth of our spirites to re∣ceiue him: so the local and corporal hiding of his humane substance vnder the shewes of breade and wine was neuer taught by any Catholike father or coun∣cel: least of al by the first Nicen Synode: exhorting vs in those mysteries: or r 1.1571 on that sacred table by faith to consider the lambe of God that tooke away the sinnes of the world: Wh••ch if any doe not both professe and perfourme, he is not worthie to be counted a Christian.

Phi.

How, saith S. Chrysost, wilt thou stand before the tribunal of Christ,s 1.1572 which inuadest euen his own bodie with wicked hands and lippes.

Theo.

This is not the way to seeke for trueth, but to shadowe the same with phrases of speeches.* 1.1573 And yet in these and al other your allegations out of Chrysostom and others, you cōmit these two grosse ouersightes. You vnderstand that of the sensible creatures in the sacrament, which was spoken of the insensible grace: & you refer that to the visible parts of our bodies, which was intēded to the inui∣sible powers of the mynd, & w^t these false foūdations you run along the fathers, peruerting euerie place that you quote, as a meane diuine may soone perceiue.

Phi.

These be your shifts to auoide the fathers which we bring, because you will not acknowledge the real & corporal presence of christ in the sacrament.

Theo.

First proue that Christ is really and corporally present vnder the forms of bread and wine, & then reproue vs if we do not ••cknowledge it.

Phi.

Doubt you that?

Theo.

Can you proue that?

Phi.

What? That Christ is present in the sacrament?

Theo.

Is that the thing which we deny?

Phi.

For ought that I see, you graunt not so much.

The.

God forbid we should deny that the flesh & bloud of christ are truly pre∣sent, & truely receiued of the faithfull at the Lords table. It is the doctrine that we ••each others, and comfort our selues with. Wee neuer doubted, but t 1.1574 the trueth was present with the signe, & the spirite with the sacramēt, as Cypri∣an saith. u 1.1575 We knew there could not follow an operation, if there went not a presence before. Set a side your carnal imaginations of Christ couered with accidences, & his flesh chammed betweene your teeth, and say what you will ei∣ther of his inui••••ble presence by power and grace, or of the spiritual and effectu∣all participation of his flesh and bloud offered and receiued of the faith-full by this Sacrament for the quickening and preseruing of their soules and bodies to eternall life, we ioyne with you: no wordes shal displease vs, that any way de∣clare the trueth or force of this mysterie. Your locall compassing of Christ with the shewes and fantasticall appearances of bread & wine, your reall grin∣ding

of his flesh with your iawes, these be the points that we deny to be Catho∣like: these doe the fathers refute as erroneous, and in these your owne fellowes be not yet resolued, what to say, or what to hold.

Phi.

Be not we resolued what to hold of Christes reall being in the Sacra∣ment, and the corporall eating his flesh with our mouthes?

Theo.

How you be secretly resolued, I know not: your iudgementes laid downe to the world in writing are cleane contrarie.

Phi.

Ours?

Theo.

Whose said I but yours?

Phi.

Howsouer in other thinges we retaine the libertie of the Schooles to dis∣pute pro & con, yet in this you shall finde vs all together.

Theo.

Together by the eares as dogges for bones.

* 1.1576Omit your contentions, what the pronowne H O C supposeth; what the verbe E S T ••ignifieth, when and how the bread is abolished, whether by con∣uersion or annihilation: what bodie succeedeth, and whether with distinction of parts and extension of quantity, or without: what subiect the accidents haue to hang on, whether the aire or the body of Christ: what it is that soureth and pu∣trifieth in the formes of bread and wine: whether it be the same bodie that sit∣teth in heauen: and if it be, how so many contradictions may be verified of one & the same thing: Omit, I say, these with infinite other like contentions, the cor∣porall eating of christ with your mouthes, are you all agreed about it?

Philan.

We are.

Theo.

Your two Seminaries are perhaps, because they hearken rather for sedition in the realme,* 1.1577 than for Religion in the Schooles: But the great Rabbins of your side are they in one opinion concerning this matter?

Phi.

Great and small consent togither against you.

Theo.

Against trueth they doe, but in their owne fantasticall error they doe not. The cheefest Pillours of your church, when they come to that point (which is now in handling) wander in the desert of their owne deuises, as men forsaking and forsaken of trueth.

Your Gloze is content, if a man gape wide, that the body of christ shall enter his mouth, but he holdeth it for an heresie, that the teeth should touch the same; and therefore when the iawes beginne to close, he dispatcheth away the body of christ in post towards heauen. a 1.1578 Certum est, It is (no coniecture but) certaine, that as soone as the formes of bread be pressed with the teeth, tam cito, pre∣sently the bodie of christ is caught vp into heauen.

Durandus is more fauourable to the teeth, and will haue christ b 1.1579 present in the mouth, chamme he that list, till his ••awes ake, but hee is as strait laced a∣gainst the stomack as the glozer is against the teeth, and wil by no meanes haue the bodie of christ to passe thither, building himselfe on these wordes of Hugo, Christ is c 1.1580 corporally present in visu & in sapore, whiles wee see or tast (the sacrament). c 1.1581 As long as our bodily senses are affected, so long his corpo∣rall presence is not remooued: but when once the senses of our bodie be∣ginne to faile (that we neither see nor tast the formes) then must wee seeke no longer for a corporall presence, but retaine the spirituall: because christ passeth from the mouth (neither to heauen as the Gloze said, nor to the sto∣mack as the rest affirme) but to the hart. And better it is that he goe straight

to the mind, than descend to the stomacke.

Others is whome d 1.1582 Bonauenture more inclineth, will no way, but Christ must take vp his lodging as wel in the stomacke as in the mouth: ma••y thence they suffer him not to wagge, neither vpward nor downward, whatsoeuer be∣come of the accident••l forms of bread and wine. And lest it should be ••hought as Durand and Hugo say, that the bodie of Christ goeth to the hart, he rep••ie••h that,e 1.1583 Quantum ad substantiam (corporis) certum est quod non vadit in me••tem, sed vtrum sic vad••t in ventr••m, dubium est propter diuersitatem opinionum: as tou∣ching the substance (of his bodie) it is cleare that he passeth not to the mind, but whether he so come (that is in the substance of his bodie, from the mouth) to the belli••, this is yet in doubt, by reason of the diue••sitie of opinions: & in so great varietie, what to hold is ha••d to iudge. Yet he liketh not, that Aut f 1.1584 mus in ventrem traijceret, aut in cloacam descenderet: the bodie of Christ shuld goe into the bellie of a mouse, or be cast foorth by the draught, because the eares of well disposed persons would abhorre that, & sidiceremus, haeretici & infideles deriderent nos, & irriderent, and if we should defend that, the heretiks and infidels would iest at vs, and laugh vs to scorne.

This notwithstanding Alexander de Hales in spi••e of al heretikes and infi∣dels ••entereth on it: g 1.1585 If a dog or an hogge, saith he, should eat the whole consecrated host, I see no cause but the Lords bodie should goe therewith∣all into the bellie of that dog or hog. Thomas of Aquine sharpely repro∣u••th them which thinke otherwise: h 1.1586 Some haue saide that as soone as the Sa∣crament is taken of a mouse or a dog, streight way the bodie and bloud of Christ cease to be there: but this is a derogation to the trueth of this Sacra∣ment. In ••auour of Thomas, Petrus de Palude, Ioannes de Burgo, Nicolaus de O••bellis, with the whole sect of Thomists (neither few in number, nor mean in credite with the church of Rome) defend the same: yea where the master of the sentences seemed to shrinke from this loathsome position. i 1.1587 It may wel be said, that the bodie of Christ is not receined of brute beasts: the facultie of diuines in Paris with full consent gaue him this check, here the master is refused.

And for feare lest the field should be wonne without him, in steppeth Anto∣nius Archbishoppe of Florence, and recompenseth his late comming with his lewd writing. First hee telleth, how Petrus de Palude dressed the Gl••ze for saying, k 1.1588 that Christ is caught vp to heauen as soone as the formes of the sa∣crament are pressed with our teeth, Quod dicere est haereticum: which to say is hereticall. And therefore they ioyne both in this, that the bodie of Christ may not only be eaten of a Mouse, but also it may be vomited vppe by the mouth and purged downe by the draught: say Bonauenture what he will or can in detesta∣tion of their folke. These be their words, l 1.1589 Igitur corpus Christi & sanguis tam diu manet in ventre & stomacho vel vomitu & quocunque alibi, quamdiu species manet. Et si specie•• incorruptae euomu••tur (illa autem q••andoque non corrùpta em••t∣tu••tur vt in habentibus fluxum) ibi est vere corpus Christi: Therefore the bodie and bloud of Christ remaine in the bellie an•• stomacke or in vomite and

in whatsoeuer course of nature, so long as the shewes of bread and wine re∣maine. And if they be vomited or* 1.1590 purged, before they be altered (as some∣times in those that are troubled with the fluxe) euen there is the true bodie of Christ. O filthie mouthes and vncleane spirites! What Capernite, what heretike, what Infidel was euer, I say not so carnall and grosse, but so barba∣rous and brutish? Is this the reuerence you giue to the sacred and glorious flesh of Christ? Is this the corporal presence that you striue for? Shal * 1.1591 Mice, Dogges, and Swine haue eternall life, that you bring them to eate the fleshe and drinke the bloud of our Sauiour? The rest of your sluttish diuinitie no re∣ligious hart can repeate, no Christian eares can abide: let your neerest frindes be iudges whether this kinde of eating doe not match not only the Capernites, but also the Canibals.

* 1.1592 This vile and wicked assertion, you will beare men in hand, you did euer de∣test, and so think to discharge your selues: but you cannot scape so: The church of Rome, whose factours and attournies you be, must answere to God and the worlde for suffering, admitting and strengthning this sacrilegious blasphe∣mie. For when these things were first broched, what did she? Did she controle the doers, and condemne the filthines of their error? Did she so much as note the men, or mislike the matter? No Philander: she proposed the question in her sentences. * 1.1593 Quid igitur sumit mus, vel quid manducat? What then doth the mouse take, or what doth he eate? And with her colde and indifferent answer, Deus nouit, God knoweth, she set the schoole men on work, she laid vp the ashes of those mice, next her altars for reliques, she fauored, aduanced and canonized the spredders of it. Thomas of Aquin was her only Paramour, Hugh of Cluince who commended a Priest for eating the sacrament which a leaper had cast vp Cum vilissimo sputo,* 1.1594 was Saincted of her: she made Antonius no worse man than an Archbishoppe. What? Call you this the quenching or kindling, the suppressing or increasing of heresies? No maruaile if you recken Rebels for Martyrs, your holy mother the Church of Rome hath the cunning to make saints of blasphemers.

Returne, returne for shame to grauitie, trueth and antiquitie: Learne to distinguishe that which is seene in this Sacrament from that which is beleeued, I meane the visible creature, from the grace which is not visi∣ble. p 1.1595 HADST THOV BEENE, saith Chrysostome, WITHOVT A BODIE (Christ) WOVLD HAVE GEEVEN THEE HIS INCORPO∣RALL GVIFTS NAKEDLY (that is without any coniunction of corpo∣rall creatures:) BVT NOW BECAVSE THY SOVL IS COVPLED WITH A BODIE, THEREFORE IN THINGS THAT BE SENSI∣BLE, THINGS INTELLIGIBLE ARE DELIVERED THEE. q 1.1596 AS BREAD, (saith Cyril of this sacrament) SERVETH FOR THE BODIE, SO THE WORD SERVETH FOR THE SOVL. It is neither nou••ltie nor absurditie to say that the bread of the Lorde, as touching the material sub∣stance, may bee deuoured of beasts, digested of men, and will of it selfe in

continuance mould and putrifie:* 1.1597 Such is the condition of all creatures that serue to nourish our bodies, and this is a creature well knowen and familiar to our senses: But the word of God which is added to the corporall elements, the grace which is annexed to the visible signes, and the flesh of Christ which quick∣neth the soul of man by faith, these thinges I say be free from all violent, and vndecen•• abuses, and iniuries. For they be no corporall, mortall, nor earthlie creatures, but spirituall, eternall and heauenly blessings, and therefore in no case subiect to the greedines of beasts, vncleanes of men, or weaknes of nature. r 1.1598 The element is one thing, saith Ambrose, the operation is an other thing. s 1.1599 That which is seene (in all Sacraments) is temporall, that which is not seene is eternall. t 1.1600 If wee looke to the very visible thinges, wherein Sacra∣ments are ministred, who is ignorant, saith Austen, that they be corruptible? But if wee consider that which is wrought by them, who doth not see, that that cannot suffer any corruption? Of the Lordes Supper Origen affirmeth that the bread as u 1.1601 touching the matter or materiall (partes) thereof go∣eth into the bellie and forth by the draught, but the praier and bles∣sing, which is added, doeth lighten the soule according to the portion of faith. x 1.1602 The sacrament (that is the sacred element) is one thing, saieth Rabanus•• the power of the Sacrament is an other thing. The Sacra∣ment is receiued in at the mouth, with the vertue of the Sacrament, the inwarde man is filled: the Sacrament is turned into the nourish∣ment of the bodie, by the vertue of the Sacrament wee attaine eternall life.

This do••trine your schoolemen either wilfullie reiected, or foolishly peruer∣ted to make Christ substantiallie present in your Masses, and for that onely cause fel•• th••y to the locall shutting of him within the formes of bread, and the corporall eating his flesh with their teeth. Which grossenes once preuailing in your Church of Rome,* 1.1603 Thomas, Alexander, Antonius and the greatest Clarkes of your side were by the consequent of your reall presence forced to con••••sse that the fl••sh of Christ might be subiect to the teeth and iawes as well of beastes, as of vnbeleeuers. For wickednes is worse than sluttishnes; and the bodies of sinnefull men God more detesteth than he doth the bowels of vn∣reasonable creatures. Since then by the generall consent of your Church Christ doeth not refuse the bellies and intralles of faithlesse persons: why say they should he not be verily contained in the capacities and inwardes of brute beastes, if by mischaunce they deuoure the Sacrament? This hold fast your gloze layeth hands on. a 1.1604 Si dicatur quodmus sumat (corpus Christi) non est mag∣num inconueni••ns, cum homines sceleratissimi illud sumant. If it be said that a mouse taketh the bodie of Christ, it is no great inconuenience, seeing most wicked men doe receiue the same: and this Bonauenture setteth downe for the chiefest motiue to that vile assertion.

Phi.

To tel you truth I like not that position.

Theo.

So long as you defend Christs humane substance to be locally present in your host, you cannot for your

hart auoide it, but either by mocking your s••lues, and deluding your senses, or els by feeding mice with miracles, and lea••ing me•• in man•••••••• dau••ger ••••••∣pen Idolatrie. For what is it, say you, that mi••••••••••, ••hen they l••ght on your host? what aunswer make you to this question, that your master proposed, and your pewfellowes striue for?

Will you say with b 1.1605 Gui••mundus and b 1.1606 Walden, two principall vpholders of your new found presence, that when mice gnaw the Sacrament, it is but a trick of deceptio visus, wee thinke they doe so, but in deede they doe not so, she poore mice be otherwise occupied, our sight is deceiued? They must needes be verie louing and deuout chickens of Antichrists broad, that will suffer you to pul out their eies, and ••elce••e that you say, though they see the contrarie. To such men you may soone perswade what Religion you list, but the wise reader will neuer be led with such monsterous fansies.

Will you take part with Innocentius and others that c 1.1607 statim desinit esse Sa∣cramentum, ex quo à mure tangitur, it ceaseth to be a Sacrament as soone as anie mouse (or other ••east) toucheth it, and the bodie of Christ leaueth that host for euer? Then besides that you prou••de miracles to fa••te mice, and nour••sh them with empty shewes, you must (before you may worship any such host, as hath beene reserued, which is common with you:) you mus•• I say ca••l beastes, birds, wormes and flies co••••m nobis, and examine them by Commission, whe∣ther any of them touched your sacrament. Else how can you be su••e that Christ is there present? For if your Sacrament were but pecked by some bird, or m••∣l••d by some ••••••se, Christ is departed, and the shape of bread is adored by you with diuine honour as if it were the sonne of God, which is palpable and inde∣fensable 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••••••ry.

Like you neither of these bold and blind ghesses? Indeed they be rather sick∣•••••• dreames than graue mens answers•• yet if these please you not you must 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 be driuen to say with Al••xander and Antonius, that the flesh of Christ descendeth into the bellies of my••••, dogges and swin••; as well as into the bod••es of wicked and vngodly ••eceiuers, which whether it be worse tha•• carnall and caperniticall let the sober and discree••e ••eader pronounce for 〈◊〉〈◊〉.

Phi.

You may not doubt in 〈◊〉〈◊〉 church but some things are am••sse.

Theo.

It goe••h ha••d wi••h your church when these 〈…〉〈…〉 amisse. Farre otherwise did the learned and auncient fathers thinke and speake of this mysterie. They taught christ to be present not in ••••••sh, but in grace: not in reall and corporall existence, but in spirituall and fruitfull ••ff••cience. They prepared for ••••m not their iawes and bellies,* 1.1608 but their mindes and harts. They fe•• him not downe from heauen to spred him on a patene, and shrowd him in a pixe, but exalted all men to mount al••ft with the winges of faith, and there aboue in heauen (not here belowe in earth) to behold the brightnes of his glorie, and tast the sweet∣nes of his mercie. In proposing, vrging & repeating which doctrine, wee finde them most carefull and diligent, most earnest and vehement; and that, if no∣thing

else will serue to conuince your nouelties. For as that part of man, which eateth the flesh of Christ, euerteth your reall presence: because no locall or corporall substaunce can enter or seede the soul••; and the trueth of Christes flesh in this mysterie by the generall consent of all ages and churches doeth en∣ter and feede the soule: so the place, whither wee must ascend, before wee can eate the Lords flesh doth clearly confute the same.

Where Christ is present thither must our hearts be directed,* 1.1609 when they are prepared to eate Christ: But the church of God in her publike prayers, & the catholike Fathers in their writinges neuer taught the faithfull to s••t their af∣fections on the thinges before them, but to lift vp their hearts from the Lords ••able to the highest heauens where Christ sate at the right hand of his Father: Ergo neither shee beleeued, nor they professed that Christ was really closed vn∣der the formes of bread & wine. Which point dislike you Philander, or which thinke you best to deny? Shoulde our hearts be turned from the place where Christ is present? I trust you bee more respectfull of God and your christian dutie, than to say, that the mindes and hearts of christian men may bee turned from Christ, or from the place where Christ is. Should the people turne their hearts to your host and chalice, looking there to find Christ? Why then did S. Paul teach vs to d 1.1610 seeke those thinges which are aboue, where Christ sitteth at the right hand of God, and to set our affections (on heauenly thinges) not on thinges which are on earth, as where Christ is not to be found? Why did the primatiue church in this sacrament alwayes cri••,e 1.1611 Sursum corda, Lift * 1.1612 vppe your hearts, and the rest answere, habemus ad Dominum, we lift them vppe vnto the Lord? Why did the learned and ancient Fathers teach the godly not to regard the thinges proposed on the Lordes table, but to mount aboue the skies with the spirituall winges of faith, there to fasten on the Lordes fleshe as Eagles, and there to receiue the cup of the new Testament? Were the fleshe of Christ really placed on your altars, as you tel vs; why should they skip him there corporallie present, and leade the people to seeke for him so farre, that their bodies by no meanes coulde attaine to the place, but onely their mindes and spirits?

Ambrose, f 1.1613 There is a bodie of which it was saide, my fleshe is meat in deede. About this bodie are the true Eagles, which houer about it with spirituall winges. The soules of the righteous are therefore compared to Eagles, because they flie high, and leaue these places (or thinges) below. g 1.1614 We touch not Christ with corporall handling, but by faith. Therefore nei∣ther on the earth, nor in the earth, nor after the flesh ought we to seek Christ, if we will find him. Chrysostom, h 1.1615 That dreadfull sacrifice doth lead vs to this, that in this life becomming Eagles we should flie vp to heauen, or rather aboue the heauens. For where the carcasse is, thither wil the Eagles. Nowe the Lordes body is the carcasse by reason of his death. Eagles he calleth (vs) to shew that he which commeth to this bodie * 1.1616 must flie aloft, and haue nothing to do with the earth, but euer mount vpward, & behold

the (bright) sun of righteousnes with the piercing eie of his mind. This table is for j 1.1617 agles, not for ••houghs. Ierom, Let vs ascend with the Lord into the great parlour d••cked & cleane, & aboue (in heauen•• receiue at his hands the cup of the new Testament, & there keepe our passouer with him. Paschasius: k 1.1618 If we be willing to receiue these things with Christ, let vs ascend aboue in∣to the parlour of life. Let vs mount vpward because they which staie below (on earth) drinke not sweete wine with Christ, but the poyson of Dragons vnhappily with Iudas. Therefore, sayth Paul sauor you those things which are aboue, not the things which are on earth. For this cup of the new Testa∣ment is not any where receiued but aboue (in heauen.) Where the carka••••e is,l 1.1619 thither will the Eagles resort, that is, saith Austen, into heauen, whither frō hence (Christ) caried with him the body, which hee tooke in the nature of man.

Had we no better ground to refuse that your corporal cating & reall presence, this were sufficient.* 1.1620 For where without question the flesh of Christ must bee locally present in your host before it can bee really pressed with teeth, the sacred scriptures & catholik fathers affirm, that the true flesh of Christ is absent from earth, & verily present in heauen, whither we must and may send our harts and faithes to be partakers of him, our hands & mouthes we can not sende: & there∣fore your late deuised doctrine must needes be dissident from the scriptures, and vnknowen to the former & purer church of christ. m 1.1621 I see, saith St••uen, the hea∣uens open, and the sonne of man standing at the right hand of God: n 1.1622whom the heauēs, saith Peter, must contain vntil the time that al things be restored.

Phi.

As though he might not also be in earth?

Theo.

Being ascended into heauen,* 1.1623 he is no more in earth, if that be true which the Angels said to his Dis∣ciples. o 1.1624 This Iesus which is taken vp from you into heauen, shall so come, as you haue seene him go into heauen: ergo when he ascended into heauen he was taken vp from them, and not left with them: and so the Lord himselfe before had taught them. p 1.1625 I came foorth from the father, and came into the world, now contrariwise I leaue the world, and go to the father. So that his ascen∣ding to the father was the leauing of the world, and his abiding with the father imployeth his absence from the world. q 1.1626 The poore you alwaies haue with you, but me, sayth hee, you shall not alwayes haue. Nowe am I no more in the world, but come to thee holy father:r 1.1627 ergo now Chri••t being with his father is no more in the world, but remaineth in heauen•• and as touching his humane na∣ture is absent from the earth, which not onely the scriptures pronounce, but also the fathers with one voice professe.

Tertullian, s 1.1628 In the very palace of heauen to this day sitteth Iesus at the right hand of his father: man, though also God: fleshe and blood, though purer than ours: neuerthelesse the very same in substaunce and forme in which he ascended. Augustine, t 1.1629 Let vs shew the Iewes at this day where Christ is, would God they would heare, and take hold of him. Hee was slaine of their fathers, he was buried, he rose againe, and was knowen of

his Disciples, and before their eyes ascended into heauen, and there now sit∣teth at the right hand of the father. Let them heare this, and lay hold on him. Perhaps he will say, whom shall I take holde of? him, that is absent? howe shall I reach my hand vp to heauen, to take hold on him sitting there?* 1.1630 Send thy faith, and thou hast hold of him. Thy fathers held him in the flesh, hold thou him in thine heart. Hee is both departe•• and present, he is return••d whence he came, and hath not left vs. His body hath hee caried to heauen, his maiestie hath hee not withdrawen from the world. u 1.1631 Mee shall you not alwayes haue. He spake this of the presence of his body. For touching his maiesty, prouidence, inspeakeable and inu••sible grace, it is true that he said, I am alwayes with you to the end of the world. * 1.1632 But as touching the fleshe which the word took, touching that by the which he was born of the virgin, fastned to the crosse, laide in the graue, you shall not alwayes haue me with you. And why? because he is ascended into heauen and is not here: there hee sitteth at the right hand of the father. Cyrill, * 1.1633 Wee must here diligēt∣ly marke, that albeit hee haue withdrawen from hence the presence of his bodie, yet in the maiestie of his Godhead hee is alwayes with vs,x 1.1634 euen as himselfe readie to depart from his Disciples promised, behold I am with you at all tymes vnto the end of the world. a 1.1635 For the faithfull must beleeue though hee be absent from vs in body, yet in his (diuine) vertue he is euer present with all that loue him: b 1.1636 with whome hee euer hath beene and will be present though not in bodie yet in the vertue of his Deitie. c 1.1637Hee coulde not bee conuersant with his Apostles in fleshe, after hee was once ascended to his Father: yet d 1.1638 for so much as Christ is truely God and man, they should haue vnderstood, that in the vnspeakeable power of his Godhead hee meant to bee alwayes with them, though in fleshe hee were absent: and e 1.1639 by that onely meanes, notwithstanding hee bee absent in fleshe, hee is able to saue his. Origen, f 1.1640 according to his diuine nature hee is not absent from vs, but hee is absent according to the dispensation of his bodie which hee tooke. As a man shall hee bee absent from vs, who is euerie where in his diuine nature. For it is not the manhood of Christ that is there wheresoeuer two or three bee gathered togither in his name, neither is it his manhood that is with vs at all times vntill the ende of the worlde: neither is his manhood present in euerie congregation of the faithfull, but the diuine vertue that was in Iesu. Ambrose, g 1.1641 Steuen a∣middest the Iewes saw thee (O Lord) absent. Marie among the Angels sawe thee not, being present. Steuen sought not for thee on earth, who sawe thee standing at the right hand of God. Marie, which sought thee in earth, could not touch thee. Steuen touched thee because he sought thee in heauen. Therefore neither on the earth nor in the earth nor after the flesh ought wee to seeke thee, if we wil find thee. h 1.1642 Gregory, Christ is not here by the presence of his flesh, which yet is nowhere absent by the presence of his maiesty.i 1.1643 The word incarnat both remaineth & departeth. He departeth

(from his) in bodie, and remaineth (with his) in diuinitie: k 1.1644 Wee must therefore brethren follow him thither in hart whither we beleeue him to be ascended in body.

If the fleshe of Christ bee not in earth, nor on earth, as these learned Fa∣thers teach vs, howe can it be locally closed in your massing waters? If his hu∣mane nature be placed in heauen at the right hand of God there to remaine till the time that all thinges be restored, and from thence, not from any place els, shall come to iudge the quicke and the dead, howe vainely doe you suppose him to bee corporally present in your p••xes,l 1.1645 and really lodged in your bellies?

Phi.

His bodie wee say may be present in many places at one time.

Theoph.

This you say, but what ancient Father euer said so before you? yea▪ rather why forget you that this is often refuted by them as a leude and hereticall fan∣sie? Doeth not Sainct Augustine of purpose debate the matter and in euident termes giue this flat resolution against you? m 1.1646 Doubt not, saieth hee▪ the man Christ Iesus to bee nowe there, whence he shall come (to iudge∣ment) but keepe in minde and holde assured the christian confession, that he rose from the dead, ascended into heauen, sitteth (now at the right hand of his Father, and * 1.1647 from thence, from no place else, shall come to iudge the quicke and the dead. And so shall he come, by the very witnesse of Angels as he was seene to goe into heauen: that is * 1.1648 in the verie same forme & sub∣stance of his fleshe the wh••ch hee hath endued with immortalitie, not be∣reaued of the former) nature. According to this forme (of his manhood) wee must not thinke him to bee diffunded in euerie place. For we must be∣ware that wee doe not so defende the God-head of a man, that wee take from him the * 1.1649 trueth of his body. It is no good consequent, that which is in God, should bee euerie where, as God himselfe is. One person is both God and man, and one Christ Iesus is both these: euerie where as he is God, in heauen as he is man. n 1.1650 Dout not I say that Christ our Lord is euerie where present as God, but * 1.1651 in some one place of heauen by the meanes of his true bodie. And againe,o 1.1652 Let vs giue the same eare to the * 1.1653 holy Gospell, that we would to the Lord himselfe if he were present. The Lord is aboue (in heauen) but the trueth is here which also the Lord is. The body in which hee rose * 1.1654 β can be (but) in one place: •• his trueth is euery where dis∣persed.

Doeth not Vigilius a blessed Martyr and Bishoppe of Trident vpholde the verie same point against Eutyches, and his accursed companions?p 1.1655 The fleshe of Christ, sayeth hee, WHEN IT WAS IN EARTH, SVRE∣LY WAS NOT IN HEAVEN, AND NOWE BECAVSE IT IS IN HEAVEN, CERTAINLIE IT IS NOT IN EARTH: yea so farre it is from being in earth, that wee looke for Christ after the flesh to come from heauen, whom as hee is God the word we beleeue to be with vs in earth. Then by your opinion, either the worde is comprised in a

place as well as the flesh (of Christ) or * 1.1656 the flesh (of Christ) is euery where togither with the worde, seeing one nature doeth not receiue in it selfe a∣ny different and contrary state. Now to be contained in a place, and to be present in euerie place be thinges diuerse and verie dislike: and for so much as the word is euery where, and the fleshe of Christ not euery where, it is cleare that one and the same Christ is of both natures, that is euerie where according to the nature of his diuinitie, & contained in a place according to the nature of his humanity.* 1.1657 This is the catholike faith, and confession which the Apostles deliuered, the Martyrs confirmed, and the faithful per∣sist in to this day.

Doth not Fulgentius handle the same question,* 1.1658 and precisely trace the steps of Sainct Augustine and Vigilius? q 1.1659 One and the same sonne of God ha∣uing in him the trueth of the diuine and humane nature, lost not the pro∣prieties of the true Godhead, and tooke also the proprieties of the true manhead: one and the selfesame: locall by that he tooke of man, and infi∣nite by that he had of his Father: one and the verie same, according to his * 1.1660 humane substaunce absent from heauen, when hee was in earth: and for∣saking the earth, when hee ascended to heauen: but according to his diuine and infinite substaunce, neither leauing heauen when hee came downe from heauen, neither departing from earth when hee ascended to heauen. The which may bee gathered by the most certaine wordes of the Lord himselfe. I ascend to my Father, and your Father. Howe coulde he ascende but as a * 1.1661 locall and true man? or howe can hee bee present with the faithfull but as an infinite and true God? not as if the humane substance of Christ might bee euery where diffunded, but because one and the same Sonne of God, albeit according to the trueth of his manhead hee were then locally placed on earth, yet according to his Godhead (which in no wise is concluded in any place) hee filled heauen and earth. This true manhead of Christ which is locall, as also his true Godhead, which is alwayes infinite, wee see taught by the Doctrine Apostolicall.* 1.1662 For that Paul might shewe, the bodie of Christ as of verie man, to bee contayned in a place, he sayeth to the Thessalonians: You turned to God from idolles, to serue the liuing and true God, and to looke for his Sonne from heauen; declaring that hee surely shoulde corporally come from heauen, whom he knewe to bee corporally raysed from the dead. His conclusion is this, Whereas then the fleshe of Christ is * 1.1663 proued without question to bee con∣tained in a place, yet his Godhead is at all times euerie where, by the wit∣nesse of Paul, &c. These bee no wrested or maymed allegations, but graue and aduised authorities of learned and auncient Fathers, plainely concluding with vs against you, that the fleshe of Christ is not absent onely from earth, and nowe sitteth aboue at the right hande of GOD, but also locally contay∣ned in some one place of heauen by reason of the trueth of his bodie: and therefore not dispersed in many places or present in euerie place, as you would

nowe make the world beleeue it is in your Masses.

Philand.

* 1.1664This was spoken of the shape, but not of the substance of Christs bodie. For Sainct Augustine sayeth, r 1.1665Secundum hanc formam non est putan∣dus vbique diffusus: according to this (externall) shape and forme we must not thinke him euerie where diffused: and yet the trueth and substaunce of his bodie may bee in many places at one time.

Theop.

You forget that the rest say nature and substaunce: as Vigilius, s 1.1666 Circumscribitur loco per natu∣ram carnis suae: Christ is circumscribed with place by the nature of his flesh: and Fulgentius,t 1.1667 Secundum humanam substantiam derelinquens terram, cum as∣cendisset in coelum; according to his humane substaunce leauing the earth, when hee ascended into heauen: and againe, u 1.1668 Non quia humana Christi sub∣stantia fuisset vbique diffusa: not, as if the humane substaunce of Christ should bee euerie where diffunded. By the which it is cleare that neither the forme, nor substaunce of Christes bodie can be present in many places at one time.

And what doeth Sainct Augustine meane by the word forme, but the per∣fection and trueth of mans nature,* 1.1669 as Ambrose, Leo, Chrysostome & others doe? What is, sayeth Ambrose, a 1.1670 in the forme of God? in the nature of God? b 1.1671 I demaund, sayeth Leo, what is ment by this, taking the forme of a seruaunt? Doubtlesse the perfection of mans nature. c 1.1672 The forme of a seruaunt is out of question, the nature of a seruaunt, sayeth Chrysostome. Therefore Augustine him-selfe addeth this reason why Christ must not bee thought to bee euerie where present, d 1.1673 ne veritatem corporis auferamus, Least wee take from him the trueth of his bodie: concluding that Christ is euerie where, e 1.1674 per id quod Deus est, by that (nature) which is God: in coelo autem, per id quod homo, in heauen by that (nature) which is man: Where these wordes that which is man interprete what he meane by the former speech whē hee saide: according to this forme Christ is not euerie where present.

But let the worde bee taken in your sense, yet doth it fully confirme our as∣sertion. For humane forme and shape is inseparably ioyned to the sub∣staunce of Christes bodie: and Christes humane forme by your confession can not bee present in many places at one time: ergo neither his humane sub∣stance. These ••waine, shape and substaunce can not bee seuered: hee is no man that hath not the shape of man. Now choose whether that bodie which, as you say your hosts containe, shall keepe the forme and shape of man, or loose the nature and substaunce of Christ. For the Lord Iesus as man, must haue not onely the substaunce but also the shape of a man. f 1.1675 So shall hee come, as you haue seene him go to heauen, that is, saith Austen, in the very same shape and substance of (his) flesh. g 1.1676 Our vile bodie, saith Paul, shall he change to bee fashioned like to his glorious bodie: but our bodies shall then haue distinction of partes, proportion of shape, circumscription of place: ergo the glorified body of Christ hath and must haue these very proprieties of our na∣ture. So that if his bodily shape can be but in one place: his bodily substance

can be in no moe. Therefore saith Fulgentius: h 1.1677 Quod siverum est corpus Chri∣sti, loco potest vtique contineri: if Christ haue a true bodie, that no doubt may be concluded in a place. And Theodoret, i 1.1678 Illud enim corpus habet priorem formam & figuram, & circumscriptionem, & vt semel dicam corporis substantiam: that bodie (which Christ caried to heauen with him) hath the same forme, figure, circumscription, & at one word the same substance of a bodie, which it had before.

Phi.

S. Chrysostome and S. Ambrose affirme the contrary.

Theo.

What affirme they?

Phi.

That one and the some bodie of Christ is euerie where pre∣sent. Their words are,k 1.1679 Quoni••m multis in locis offertur, multi Christi sunt? ••equa∣quā, sed vnus vbique est Christus, & hic plenus existens, & illic plenus, vnum corpus. Because we offer in many places, are there many Christs? no by no meanes: but one Christ is euery where, here whole, and there whole, one body. And S. Chrysostom exceedingly wondring at so miraculous a presence crieth out; l 1.1680O the strangenes of the thing; O the goodnes of (our) God! He that sitteth aboue with his Father (in heauen) at the verie moment of time is handled with the fingers of all men.

Theo.

Make you Chrysostom and Ambrose the disciples of Eutyches?* 1.1681

Phi.

Make you no worse reckoning of them, than I do: and they shall haue their due honor.

Theo.

I thinke them to be farre from Eutyches errour.

Phi.

And so doe I.

The.

Why then alleadge you their words for that erronious position which was condemned in Eutyches?

Phi.

I alleadge them for the reall presence of Christ in the Sacrament.

Theo.

Your reall presence and vbiquitie if you will haue Christs humane substance dispersed in many places, without shape or cir∣cumscription, are the verie bowels and inwardes of Eutyches heresie.

Phi.

No Sir, S. Chrysostom and S. Ambrose were no heretikes.

Theo.

In deede they were not: and therefore you doe them the more wrong to wrest their spee∣ches to make for his madnes.

Philand.

We produce them to confirme a trueth.

Theophil.

The very same trueth, that the church of Christ abhorred in Eu∣tyches.

Phi.

What did the church abhorre?

Theo.

Euen this which you would proue by the words of Ambrose & Chrysostom:* 1.1682 ••hat the flesh of Christ after his ascen∣sion was not locall nor circumscribed within any certaine place.

Phi.

We grant the manhood of Christ in heauen, is locall and circumscribed with place: & that setteth vs free from Eutyches errour.

Theo.

It doeth if you constantly keepe that point of faith and contradict it not by an other deuise.

Phi.

We verilie be∣leeue, and publikely professe that Christes humane nature in heauen hath quan∣tity, shape, distinction of parts, circumscription and all other conditions of a naturall and true body:* 1.1683 what would you more?

Theo.

We would no more, but if you fall from that, are you not within the compasse of Eutyches furie?

Phi.

We fal not from it.

The.

Then how can Christs body in the sacrament wāt all these, which christiā religion affirmeth to bee permanent & perpetual in the mā∣hood of Christ? or why would you collect out of Amb. or Chry. against the very

principles of faith that Christes humane fleshe is vncircumscribed, and euerie where diffused?

Philand.

Wee meane that of Christes fleshe in the Sacrament, not of his manhood in heauen.

Theophil.

Bee there many Christes?

Philand.

Who sayth there are?* 1.1684 you heard that euen now reproued by S. Chrysostom and S. Ambrose, as a wicked absurditie, to say that there were many Christes. And therefore they concluded there was but one Christ euerie where.

Theo.

That one Christ, hath hee many naturall and substantiall bodies?

Philand.

Why aske you those questions of vs? we bee not infected with any such frensie.

Theo.

You may the sooner answere. Hath Christ two reall and naturall bodies, the one in heauen, the other in the Sacrament?

Phi.

No, this is all one with that.

Theo.

That by the rules of your creede is locall and circumscribed: if this bee the same howe can this bee without quantitie, shape, and circumscription?

Phi.

Beleeue you not Christ when hee sayde this is my bodie?

Theop.

Yeas very∣ly: but you so expound his words, that you subuert the whole frame of his truth and our common faith, with your reall and locall presence.

Phi.

Do we subuert the common faith with our opinion?

Theo.

Our Christian faith is this. m 1.1685 Wee must beleeue, sayeth Augu∣stine, the Sonne of God, according to the substance of his Deitie to be inui∣sible, incorporall and vncircumscribed, but according to his humane na∣ture to be visible, corporall, and locall. You heard Vigilius the martyr say, n 1.1686 For so much as the word is euery where, and the fleshe of Christ not euery where, it is cleare, that one and the same Christ is of two natures: eueriwhere according to the nature of his Diuinity, and contained in a place according to the nature of his humanitie: and this, sayeth hee, is the catholike fayth & confession which the Apostles deliuered, the Martyrs confirmed, & the faithfull stand in to this day. This faith and confession if you infringe of vio∣late, you ioyne handes with Eutyches against the church of God, and against the groundes of our common creede: and this you must needes impugne if you defend the naturall body of Christ to be euery where present, as you would gather out of Ambroses and Chrysostomes wordes.

Philand.

Wee say not, euerie where, but in the Sacrament.

Theoph.

But their wordes are, euerie where.* 1.1687 Vnus vbique est Christus, one Christ is euerie where.

Philand.

That is in the Sacrament.

Theophil.

That is your additament. They say generally, one Christ is euerie where.

Phil.

To say that his humane nature is euerie where without any restraint, were in deede a braunch of Eutyches errour.

Theophil.

And since they say so: you must either vnderstande it of his diuine nature, which is rightly and truely sayde to bee euerie where present without addition, or else of the spirituall and effectuall presence of his bodie which entereth the soules, and strengthneth the hearts of all the faythfull by the power of his grace and trueth of his promise. And either of these wayes their wordes are verie sound, & your locall presence no part of their speech.

Phi.

S. Chrysostom saith, o 1.1688 Omnium manibus pertractatur: he is euē hand∣led with al men fingers.

Theo.

You do that father very much wrong, to wrest his eloquent and figuratiue speeces to your carnall and grosse surmises. The verie tenor of his wordes wil declare that hee meaneth nothing lesse than your corporal and locall touching, With our bodily hands, wee neither can nor doe touch Christ. S. Ambrose saith.p 1.1689 Non Corporali tactu Christū, sed fide tangimus: We touch not Christ with our fingers, but with our faith. And so S. Austen q 1.1690 Ipsum iam in caelo sedentem manu contrectare non possimus, sed fide contingere. We cannot handle Christ with our fingers sitting now in heauen: but with our faith we may. In this sense Chrysostomes wordes are very true but nothing to your corporall vbiquitie of Christs flesh.

Phi.

How shall wee know that this was his meaning:* 1.1691 finding no words of his to direct vs to that sense?

Theo.

His speech is otherwise so false, that none but Iesuits would make any doubt of it. And yet the very next wordes be∣fore these are a plain admonition to the hearers what to conceiue of this & such like places. r 1.1692 Annon euestigio in caelos transferris: annon carnis cogitationem omnem abij••iens nudo animo, mente pura circumspicis quae in caelo sunt. Art thou not pre∣sently caried vppe to heauen? Doest thou not, casting all cogitation of (thy) fleshe aside, with a pure mind and soul seuered (from the bodie) looke round on the things which are in heauen? In this spirituall and yet hyperbolicall vehemencie he goeth on, amplifieng euery poinct, & saying that Christ is hand∣led with al their fingers, and that s 1.1693 in the open sight of all that stoode about: concluding no corporall or locall comprehension of Christ in the Sacrament by any of these mysticall and figuratiue speaches (whereof he is ful,) but only that t 1.1694 grace flowing into the Sacrifice should inflame all their hearts, and make them cleaner than siluer, purged and tried in the fier. This is the presence of Christ which Chrysostome auoucheth, euen the influence of his (heauenly) grace: & that spiritual force and grace, as Gregorie saith, may very wel be constered to be the trueth of his bodie and bloud in the mysteries. So that the same christ is euery where present, not by local or corporal diffusion, but by mysticall operation: and one bodie is proposed to all, not to ••ill their mouthes, but to clense their hearts,* 1.1695 and to giue them assurance of eternall life.

Phi.

May not the body of Christ in the sacrament bee such as wee defend, though his bodie in heauen be not?

Theo.

If the body of Christ in the sacra∣ment be the very same that is in heauen, how can it so much differ from it? If it be an other, how can it be his, since he hath but one naturall bodie, and that by no meanes capeable of such contrarieties as you imagine?

Phi.

Is not Christ omnipotent?

Theo.

Almightie hee is in working his will, not in chan∣ging his nature.

Phi.

Wil you limite his might?

Theo.

The christian faith is not repugnant to his might, but agreeable to his trueth, which you may not sub∣uert with a pretence of his power at your pleasures. Tertullian saith very wel, u 1.1696 If in our owne presumption we abruptly vse this reaso••, (nothing is hard

to God,) wee may faine what we list of God, as though he had doone it be∣cause he could do it. We must not, because he can doe all things, therefore beleeue he hath doone that, which he hath not. But we must search, whe∣ther he hath doone it or no. For this respect some things may be hard vnto God himselfe, to witte, that which he hath not doone, not because he could not doe it, but because he would not.

Phi.

Can not the power of Christ alter the nature of his manhoode?

Theo.

Were it possible that the manhoode of Christ might be changed and altered in his essentiall proprieties,* 1.1697 (which assertion the Church yet alwayes reiected as hereticall) why stand you so much on this what Christ can doe, when you plain∣ly perceiue by your Creed what Christ will doe? Shal his power ouerthwarte his will? Or his arme disappoint his mouth? We neede not dispute whether it be possible or no, this sufficeth vs, that the Lorde himselfe saith, he will leaue the world and be no more in the worlde: Whatsoeuer he can doe, this we be sure, he will doe: his worde is trueth, and his will knowen: against that if you stand and oppose his power to make him a lyar, assure your selues hee hath power enough to be reuenged on your obstinacie, for vrging his power (which is no part of your care) against his wil, which he hath commanded you to beleeue and obay.* 1.1698

Phi.

It is you that neither beleeue his wil, nor agnise his power: we build our selues on both.

Theo.

His wordes by which you gather his will, you ••rame and inuert to your owne purposes: and when we would reduce you from the misconstruction of his speach by the very tenor of the Christian faith, you pleade his power to delude his trueth and ouerflorish a lewd heresie with a shew of his omnipotencie.

Phi.

We do not pretend that power of God for any vn∣trueth.

Theo.

If the Christian faith bee trueth; you vrge his power against his trueth.

Phi.

Go we against the Christian faith?

Theo.

Confesse you the distinction of two natures in Christ after his ascension?

Phi.

We do.

Theo.

And the proprieties of either to remaine without confusion, conuersion or alte∣ration?

Philand.

What els?

Theophil.

This then is the Christian faith, that h••th natures in Christ now doe, and euer shall keepe and continue their seuerall and different proprieties without failing or changing.

Phi.

* 1.1699That we beleeue.

Theo.

How thē can the manhood of Christ be in many places at one time? Or how can it in any place or time be without shape, quantitie, circumscripti∣on and such like proprieties of mans nature?

Phi.

In heauen it hath them.

Theo.

If they can not be changed or altered, the manhoode of Christ must haue them: not in heauen only, but in earth also, & in euery place where the substance of his bodie is.

Philand.

* 1.1700 Saue in the Sacrament.

Theophi.

If that be the same bodie which was on the Crosse, it must haue the same natural proprieties of a body which that had.

Phi.

It hath as many as it may.

Theo.

It must haue as many as it should.

Phi.

Which be they?

Theo.

Proporti∣on of shape, distinction of parts, extension of quantitie, circumscription of place,

and the very same substance of fleshe which hee tooke of his mother Marie.

Phi.

You name these things which you see bee not in the Sacrament.

Theophi.

I name those which the manhood of Christ must haue, wheresoeuer it be.

Phi.

Must haue? What necessitie is in that▪

Theo.

As much as the denying of your faith & contradicting of his trueth. For these proprieties the body had that hung on the Crosse, and without these hee can be no true man.

Philan.

In heauen we tell you he hath them.

Theophil.

And in the Sacrament, wee tell you, ••ee hath them not: Ergo the manhoode of Christ is not in the Sacrament.

Phi.

* 1.1701 Cannot Christ be where he list without those consequents?

Theo.

His bodie can not.

Phi.

Doe not you nowe deny him to be omnipotent?

Theophi.

Doe not you now alleadge his power to frustrate both his will and your faith?

Philand.

You hold christ cannot, if he would.

Theo.

We say christ would not, though he could. And since his will is euident by his worde, as our common faith auoucheth, you doe wickedly to crosse his will with his power, and make his might attendant on your follies. * 1.1702Dei velle, posse est: & non posse, nolle. The power of God (which we must stand on) is his wil: and that which he will not, that he cannot. You must not therefore ima∣gine what you list: and then ground vpon the power and strength of GOD: it is error and impietie whatsoeuer is repugnant to his trueth, and to fa∣ther your falsehoodes on his almightie power is irreuerent and insolent blasphemie.

Phi.

You doe not so much as confesse that he can doe it: and that causeth vs to suspect you doubt of Gods omnipotencie.

Theo.

Because we suffer you not to vnload your absurdities and impieties on Gods power at your plea∣sures.* 1.1703

Philand.

First graunt hee can doe it, and of that wee will com∣mune afterward.

Theo.

What shall I graunt?

Phi.

That Christ according to his corpo∣rall presence may be in many places at one time if it please him.

Theo.

What then shal become of S. Austen that said: Christ a 1.1704could not concerning his cor∣porall presence be at one time in the sunne, in the moone, and on the crosse? And of S. Cyril affirming that Christ b 1.1705could not be conuersant with his A∣postles after he once ascended? If hee could not bee in three places at one time, how could hee bee in moe? If not in earth when he was in heauen, how both in heauen and earth as you your selues conceiued and woulde haue vs confesse?

And yet the thing, which we withstand, is far more impossible than this. For the manhoode of Christ, by the tenour of the christian faith hath and must haue, after his ascension, humane shape, partes, length, breadth, both extended & cir∣cumscribed: and otherwise to thinke, is the wicked and cursed opinion of Euty∣ches condemned long since by the church of God for a meere impietie. You to a∣uoide the burdē of that sentence confes these properties are & must be permanēt in y^e body which our sauiour tooke of the virgin: & wherein he now sitteth at the

right hand of God his father:* 1.1706 marie the selfesame bodie you defend to bee in the sacrament without shape, partes, length or breadth either extended or circum∣scribed, which is wee say simplie impossible. For shaped not shaped, extended not extended, circumscribed not circumscribed, be plaine contradictions, & those of one thing, at one time, are not possible.

Phi.

Is any thing impossible to God?c 1.1707

Theo.

Doth not the Apostle say,d 1.1708 e 1.1709 Negare seipsum non potest, God cannot deny himselfe? & Impossibile est De∣um mentiri, it is impossible that God should lie? S. Austen well noteth Di∣citur omnipotens, faciendo quod vult, non patiendo quod non vult, vnde propterea quae∣dam non potest, quia est omnipotens. God is said to be omnipotent, in doing that he will, not in suffering that hee will not. And therefore can he not doe some things, because he is omnipotent. And S. Ambrose likewise, f 1.1710 Quid ergo ei impossibile? Non quod virtuti arduum, sed quod naturae eius contrarium. What then is impossible to God? not that which passeth his power, but that which is contrarie to his nature. g 1.1711 Impossibile istud non infirmitatis, sed virtutis & maiestatis: quia veritas non recipit mendacium, nec Dei virtus leuitatis errorem. This impossibilitie proceedeth not of infirmitie,* 1.1712 but of might and maiestie: because the trueth (of God) admitteth not a lie: nor the power of God any note of inconstancie. So that all changes against his nature, or falshoods a∣gainst his trueth bee vtterly impossible to GOD: and that because hee is al∣mighty.

Phi.

* 1.1713That we know.

Theo.

Then this also you must needs know, that contradictions be impossible: for, of thē if one part be true, the other is euer false: and that God should be false it is not possible. You must therfore either with Eutyches affirme the manhood of christ to be changed from his former shape, partes, quantitie and circumscription: and consequently from his former sub∣stance: or els against religion and learning, reason and sense defend contradicti∣ons, that is trueth and falshoode to bee possible both at one time;* 1.1714 which is no∣thing but to make God a liar in his workes as you be in your wordes for main∣taining that error.

Phi.

At diuers times, and in 〈…〉〈…〉 contradictions may bee true.

Theo.

There can be but one part 〈…〉〈…〉 other at the same instant is ineuitablie false: and as for your 〈…〉〈…〉 the proprieties of christes bodie, which wee speake of, bee abs••lute and inherent necessities, no relations nor comparisons: you may keepe them for some better ••art: in this assertion they will doe you no seruice.* 1.1715

Phi.

What if we say the bodie of christ in the Sacrament, hath the same proportion of shape, extension of partes, and circumscription of place which it hath in heauen, how can you refell vs?

Theo.

Neuer take the pai••es to incur new contradictions: a shorter answer will serue you for all: and that is: say you beleeue, you cannot tell what. For otherwise men wil thinke you madde, if you fall to these positions that Christ in the host hath an humane shape, and yet the host, which couereth him, fully round: that he is there in the * 1.1716 iust length

and breadth of a man, and yet exactly enclosed in euery cromme of the bread, & drappe of the wine, that he is * circumscribed with place, and yet contained in no place, that he * consisteth of skinne, fleshe and bones, and yet breaketh in shi∣uers, and is poured out like liquor: these with infinite other such outragious and enourmous absurdities and contrarieties will declare rather the weakenes of your braines, than the maner of his presence. You shall do well therefore either to shew vs what father euer taught these things before you, or els keepe this confusion of al religion & learning for those that list to ieopard their souls vpon such iests: The Realme of England is not yet minded to admitte th••se monsters into their Creede.

Phi.

* 1.1717 We teache not these things without good grounds, and such as the Catholike Fathers before vs embraced, and allowed.

Theo.

If you follow their steppes, then shew vs their writings for that you affirme.

Phi.

Can wee not thinke you?

Theo.

What you can doe, I care not: you do not, I see.

Phi.

What one thing defend we, which we haue not their witnes and warrant for?

Theo.

You haue not one father for this whole question.

Phi.

Not for the real presence?

Theo.

You may runne on with some misconstructions of the Fa∣thers: which are as soone answered by vs, as obiected by you: but an euident te∣stimonie for any of the partes which I haue proposed, you haue none.

Phi.

What partes?

Theo.

Your head is wandring that you haue since forgotten * 1.1718 them. * 1.1719 That Christ spake not of the bread when he said, this is my body: or that the sense of his wordes was literall, or that the substance of bread ceaseth after consecrati∣on, so as nothing remaineth of the former elements but accidents: or * 1.1720 that the corporall eating with the mouth (of which the Fathers speak) must be meant of the things themselues, and not of the signes called by those names and hauing those vertues after sanctification: or * 1.1721 that the material substance of Christs na∣tural body may be present in many places at one time: or * 1.1722 that it is no heresie to defend the body of Christ after his ascension may lack circumscription, ex∣tension or shape: For any of these bring vs but one sufficient and auncient authoritie, we will omit the rest, and admit your Masse.

Phi.

Will you stand to that worde?

Theo.

If you will vndertake the proofe.

Philand.

* 1.1723 I will.

Theo.

And what if you performe it not, will you bethinke your selfe how lewdly you seduce the people of this land vnder a pre∣tence of pietie and resist the annoincted of God vnder a colour of blind deuotion and zeale to your holie Father the worker of al this wickednes though the founder of your two Celledges?

Phi.

If I perform not that, I will do any thing: marie prouided alwaies you shall not cauill at the Fathers workes, when I cite them, and say they be forged.

Theo.

Prouided also, that you pro∣duce the Fathers workes themselues, and not the bare reportes of your fellowes, that haue falsely conueied many thinges in the Fathers names.

Philand.

You shall haue their owne workes.

Theoph.

Then keepe on your owne course.

Phi.

The rest of the points, which you propose, I am alreadie past: only trā∣substan••iation, which you most impugne, I kept to the last to giue you the list: But if I proue it so, as you shall not deny it, will you be as good as your pro∣mise, and become a catholike?

Theo.

A Catholike if I were not, I would bee with a good will, but not of your making. For if you cannot shew me one Fa∣ther that euer taught your Transubstantiation, wel you may * 1.1724 call your selues catholiks and christes own fellowes if you will: but all that be Godly and wise will take you for deceitful, if no•• for desperate, heretikes. But why spend you time with tri••ling thus? It were better your fathers were on foot, at lest, if you haue them.

Phi.

Haue them? Such as shall amaze you when you heare them.

Theo.

Your vaine is in. A stourdie preface doth ill become an hungrie Oratour.

Phi.

Marke the end.

Theo.

I would see the man, that I might marke him.

Phi.

S. Austen shalbe the * 1.1725 man.

Theo.

Was he a Transubstantiator?

Phi.

Fairly, flatly, fully.

Th.

So was the moone first made of green cheese.

Phi.

You wil not beleeue him, til you heare him.

Theo.

He is not long in comming ••hath he not yet learned his lesson? or are you scant resolued whether it be he or not?

Phi.

It is euen he: and these be his wordes, Non dubitare debet al••quis, cum panis & vinum consecrantur in veram substantiam Christi: ita vt non remaneat sub∣stantia panis vel vini: cum multa alia etiam in operibus Dei non minus miranda vide∣mus. Hominem enim substantialiter mutat Deus in lapidem, vt vxorem Loth: & in paruo artificio hominis faenum & filicem in vitrum. Nec credendum est quod sub∣stantia panis velvini remaneat: sed panis in corpus Christi: & vinū in sanguinem con∣uertitur, solummodo qualitatibus panis & vini remanentibus. No man ought to doubt when bread & wine are consecrated into the trew substance of christ, so as the substance of bread & wine doth not remaine, whereas we see ma∣nie things in the works of God no lesse maruelous (than this). A man God changeth substantially into a stone, as Loths wife: & in the small workman∣ship of man, hay & ferne into glasse. Neither must we beleeue that the sub∣stance of bread or wine remaineth, but the bread is turned into the bodie of Christ, & the wine into (his) bloud, the qualities (or accidents) of bread & wyne only remaining. What say you to this check, is it mate or no?

Theo.

The words are sufficient, if the writer be ancient.

Phi.

Then are you gone: for the author is S. Austen▪

Theo.

He seemeth to haue beene some glass••maker, rather than S Austen: for he saith the * 1.1726 working of glasse is as wounderful a feate, as the turning of bread into Christs bodie.

Phi.

You would disgrace the writer: but he will not so be put out of countenance.

Theo.

I think he will not: for had he, or you, any shame left, he would haue blushed al his while to beare S Austens name, which was none of his: & you would haue had some remorce to deceiue the worlde with such apparent & euident treacheries.

Phi.

I thought where we should haue you. Now you cannot shifte the wordes, you 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the place for a forgerie: but this is against the first pro∣uiso, which I made with you.

Theophi.

Then shew vp where you find it

in his workes: for that was the second prouiso, which you agreed to.

Phi.

I assure my selfe these wordes are Saint Austens.

Theophil.

Your assurance is not currant. Shewe vs where, that wee may finde them.

Phi.

What if I haue not the booke in a readme••?

Theo.

Name the place and it sh••ll suffice.

Phi.

Perhaps it is * 1.1727 not printed.

Theo.

By whome then is it reported?

Phi.

By such as would not lye.

Theoph.

By Walden the frier that wrate against Wicleff?

Phil.

What if he were the reporter?

Theophil.

Where had he it?

Phi.

In an old copie, written with an auncient and set hand.

Theo.

Which ne∣uer no man sawe besides himselfe.

Philand.

That you cannot tell.

Theoph.

Nor you: but where is that copy now?

Philan.

Why aske you me? out of S. Augustine he had it.

Theo.

Shew vs the booke, and beare the bell.

Philan.

He saith it.

Theo.

As though your frierly practises, and manifolde forgeries vnder the fathers names were not too wel knowen to trust a Romish Coruester vpon his bare worde, in a matter of such importance.

Phi.

In my conscience,* 1.1728 hee woulde not wilfullie belye S. Augustine.

Theophil.

Your conscience is no good consequence. In my knowe∣ledge there was no such doctrine taught in the Church, as these woordes import whiles S. Augustine liued: nor fiue hundreth yeares after his death: but the contrary was earnestly maintained and auouched, as I haue prooued by Gelasius, Theodoret, and others. And therefore either Walden must make it of his owne heade, or ignorantly light on a patch of Anselmus, or some such late writer, vnder the name of Saint Augustine: which was common in your Abbayes and is at this day confessed by your owne fellowes.

Philand.

If you thinke Saint Augustine were mistaken:* 1.1729 you shall haue in venerable Bede as plaine woordes for this point as in Saint Au∣gustine.

Theophil.

And as plainely forged as Saint Augustine was?

Philand.

Heare what he saieth before you iudge.

Theophil.

I am as rea∣dy to heare as you to speake.

Philand.

His woordes are, * 1.1730 Ibi forma panis videtur, vbi substantia panis non est. There the forme of bread appeareth, where the substance of bread is not.

Theophil.

These places hit your handes as patte as if your selues had framed them.

Philand.

You were best saie this is forged,

Theophil.

I neede not. It saith so much of it selfe, creept you can shewe where it is written.

Philand.

In his * 1.1731 booke de my∣steriis missae.

Theophil.

There be exta••t eight tomes of his workes: is it in any of them?

Philand.

It maie be, it is not.

Theophil.

Did he euer write any such booke, as de mysteriis missae?

Philand.

What else?

Theo.

Who saith so?

Phi.

This is alledged out of that booke.

Theo.

But is he ne∣uer wrate anie such booke, how can thi•• be all••dged out of him?

Phi.

If he did not, you saie something: but how prooue you, that he wrate no such booke?

Theo.

N••y you must prooue he did. We hauing the Catalogue of his labours witnessed by Tri••••emius and others of your owne friends: and eight t••mes of his writinges at this day extant find no such booke named as Walden mentioneth.

Philand.

All this notwithstanding, he might write

such a booke.* 1.1732

Theo.

He might, is not enough: you must prooue he did, before we acquite you of corruption.

Phi.

Walden repeateth those wordes as out of his booke.

Theo.

We had too late experience of Walden in S. Austen, to beleeue either him, or you.

Phi.

You will deny all things.

Theo.

You yet bring nothing, but that which is no where found in the fathers workes, if it be not lewdly forged in their names. Thinke you with such trumperie to trie your selues Catholikes?

Phi.

We haue found and good records.

Theo.

Bring out those, for these be worse than rotten. A frier, fourteene hundreth and thirtie yeares after Christ, to come with new places out of Austen and Bede cleane contrarie to the rest of their writings, and such as neuer any man alledged before him: and neuer any man saw them after him, who but seducers would bleare the world, and blinde themselues with such authorities?

Phi.

Wee did but alledge them to sound what you would say.

Theo.

Then leaue them with shame, since you see what they are; and get you to other, if you haue anie.

Phi.

You would haue them auncient.

Theo.

Would you prooue your selues Catholikes by men of your owne faction?

Phi.

If you count that a faction, all the fathers were of * 1.1733 our faction.

Theo.

You may soone make them to any faction, if you follow frier Waldens fashion: but bring vs their workes that we may iudge of their woordes, or els you striue in vaine.

Phi.

Hereafter I will.

Theo.

Then haue you a cold sute of this question. For of accidentes without subiect, or abolishing the substance of bread, neuer father spake one word.

Phi.

Yeas: S. Chrysostome ••aith, a 1.1734 Doest thou see bread? doest thou see wine? Doe these thinges goe to the draught as other meates doe? Not so. Thinke not so. For as when waxe is put to the fire nothing of the substance remaineth, nothing redoundeth: so here also thinke thou the mysteries consumed with the substance of the (diuine) bodie. Heare you this Theo∣philus? Nothing of the former substance remaineth but the same is consumed with the presence or substance of Christes bodie.

Theo.

I heare it well Phi∣lander, if you would take it right. When you put waxe into the fire, nothing, neither shew, nor substance remaineth: this is so true, that it will doe you small good.

Phi.

Will it not? So it is in the mysteries, saith this father.

Theoph.

You would haue it so. But Chrysostome saith, * 1.1735 so thinke, when thou com∣mest to the mysteries.

Phi.

And should wee thinke a falshood, when wee ap∣proch to the mysteries?

Theo.

No: but pull both your hartes and eyes from the materiall elements, as not regarding them: and fixe your cogitations on the celestial grace and vertue that preuaileth and worketh in the mysteries.

Phi.

He would haue vs thinke the mysteries to be consumed.

Theo.

If any reall mutation were to be concluded by this place, your holie formes and accidents of breade and wine must be packing, as well as the substance. For when waxe is throwen into the fire, what accidences can you ••et vs remaining? doe they not perish togither with the substance? If you consult the Schooles, they will tell you the accidentes onely perish, the matter doeth not. So that

Chrysostomes similitude maketh litle for your conuersion of substances with∣out accidences,* 1.1736 his illation certainly maketh lesse. Thinke, saieth he, that the mysteries in like ••ort be consumed. The substance of bread, which you say is not, can no way be taken with you for the mysteries: but the shewes and formes of bread and wine by your opinion must be counted in this and all other places the sacred mysteries: and therefore if any mysteries be consumed, your acciden∣ces can neuer scape the brunt of these wordes: Howbeit Chrysostomes true meaning was not to turne the bread and wine from their former qualities or substances, but the communicantes from all vnworthy and earthly cogitations of the mysticall elements: and to stir them rather to marke in this Sacrament the wonderfull power and effects of Gods spirit and grace, than the base condi∣tion and naturall digestion of bread and wine.

Phi.

Would S. Chrysostom haue vs thinke the mysteries to bee consumed, vnlesse in deede they were consumed?

Theo.

His directing our cogitations for religion and reuerence rather to the inward force, than outward appearance of the mysteries, doeth not chaunge the sensible qualities of bread and wine, whereof hee spake,* 1.1737 much lesse the substance alone, whereof he spake not: but draweth the receiuers from that which their eyes behold, to that, which by faith they beleeue to the secreter and diuiner part of the Sacrament: not abolishing the one, but preferring the other, as more worthy to be considered and desired by the commers to the Lordes table. And in this sense he willeth the people not to thinke that the Priest is a man in the verie next wordes that followe without line or letter betwixt. b 1.1738 Wherefore approaching (to the Lordes table) doe not thinke that you receiue the diuine body at the handes of a man, but that you take a fierie coale by the Seraphims tongues, which Esay sawe in his vision.

Can this be Chrysostoms meaning,* 1.1739 that in act and verie deede the Priest is changed into a Seraphim, his hand into a paire of tongs, the body of Christ in∣to a coale of fire? Except you be past your fiue wits, you wil say no: yet Chryso∣stom in the same place perswadeth the cōmunicants so to think as he did before that the mysteries were consumed by the substance or presence of Christs body. Then if the latter wordes inferre no such chaunge: why should the former? If you be not so foolish as to mistake the second part of this sentence, why be you so wilfull as to peruert the first, vttered at the same time, to the same purpose, with the verie same phrase of speach? Chrysostomes intent is no more to trans∣substantiate the bread, than the priest, or the bodie of Christ: but with vehement amplifications (as his manner is) he perswadeth the people to come to the Lordes table with no lesse reuerence than if they were to receiue a fierie coale (as Esay did in his vision) from one of the glorious Seraphims. And to this end also doth he kendle them what he can, not to be basely minded and affected to∣ward the mysteries, as if they were onely bread and wine, in that sort to passe through the bellie with other meates, but to prepare their hartes, and to lift them vp to God,* 1.1740 as they promised to doe when the Priest saide, lift vp your

minds and harts, & they made answere, we lift them vp vnto the Lord. These wordes therefore force no reall mutation in the thinges receiued,* 1.1741 but leade the receiuers from thinking on the weake creatures, which they see, to the mighty power of Gods graces, which they see not: and this is done with a religious cō∣sideration, not with any monsterous transubstantiation or annihilation of the sacred mysteries.

Phi.

S. Cyrill of Ierusalem saith: * 1.1742 Know you for a suerty, that this bread which is seene of vs, is not bread, though the tast find it to be bread, but the body of Christ. And so Theophilact, d 1.1743 It appeareth to bee bread, but it is fleshe.

Theo.

The first authors of this speach were late writers, as Theophilact, or lately set foorth by your fellowes not without great suspition, as Cyrill of Ieru∣salem: and the speech it selfe doth somwhat vary from the stile both of the Scri∣ptures and fathers which acknowledge this mysterie to be bread & wine. * 1.1744 The bread, which we breake, saith Paul, is it not the communion of Christes bo∣dy? We all are partakers of one bread. f 1.1745 As often as you eate of this bread & drink of this cup, you shew the Lords death til he come. Let a man examine himselfe, and so let him eate of this bread and drink of this cup. And our Sa∣uiour in the Gospell speaking of the cup: g 1.1746 I will not drinke hencefoorth of this fruit of the vine. Tertul. h 1.1747Christ hath not, euen at this day reiected the water of the creator, by which he doth wash his, nor the bread, by the which hee doth represent his verie body. Clemens Alexandrinus, i 1.1748 This is my blood, euē the blood of the grape. Cyprian, k 1.1749 We find it was wine, which the Lord cal∣led his blood. The Lord called his body, bread kneaded togither of many cornes, and his blood, wine pressed out of many clusters of grapes. Origen, (l 1.1750The Lords bread) according to the materiall (partes) thereof goeth into the belly and so foorth by the draught. Austen, m 1.1751 As the men of God before vs did expound this, the Lord commended his body & blood in those things which are made one of many. For the first is kneaded of many cornes into one (lumpe) the other is pressed of many clusters into one (liquour). That then which you saw, is bread; which also your eyes can tell you. Cyrill of A∣lexandria, n 1.1752 To the beleeuing Disciples Christ gaue peeces of breade, saying; take, eate, this is my body. Hesychius, (Hee meaneth) o 1.1753 that mystery, which is both breade and fleshe. The phrase it selfe therefore (It is not bread) sauoreth of later ages and writers: and crosseth that course of speeche which both Scriptures and Fathers obserued: and yet if you suffer them to declare their owne mindes, they may soone be reconciled to the rest.

Theophilact * 1.1754 expressing the same point in other wordes, saieth: p 1.1755 Speciem quidem panis & vini seruat, in virtutem autem carnis & sanguinis transelementat. (Christ) keepeth the shape (or kind) of bread and wine, but changeth thē into the vertue of his body and blood. Cyrill openeth his owne saying more at large, q 1.1756 The bread of the Eucharist after the inuocation of the holy Ghost,

is nowe no more common bread, but the bodie of Christ. r 1.1757In the new Law, the heauenly bread and cup of saluation sanctifie both soule and bodie. As the bread serueth for the bodie, so doth the word for the soule. Thinke not therefore (of the Sacrament) as of bare bread and bare wine, it is the body and blood of Christ according to the Lordes owne wordes. And although sense tell thee this (that is bare bread and wine) yet let faith con∣firme thee, neither iudge them by tast, but rather by faith assure thy selfe without all doubt that the body and blood (of Christ) are giuen vnto thee. This assertion, we grant, is right and good; and this intent had hee, when hee said, the bread which is seene is no bread, meaning no common, no bare bread.

In which assertion other ancient Fathers concurre with him. Iustinus, s 1.1758Wee receiue not these thinges as a common & vsual bread, or accustomed drink, but we be taught, that the food blessed by praier of the worde receiued from him, is the fleshe and blood of that Iesus which tooke fleshe (for our sakes.) Ireneus, t 1.1759 The bread hauing the inuocation of God is nowe no common bread, but an Eucharist (or thankesgiuing) consisting of two things, a ter∣restriall & a celestiall. So Ambrose, u 1.1760 (The Sacrament) is not that which na∣ture hath framed: but that which blessing hath halowed. They do not auouch the Sacrament to bee simply no bread; they teach it to bee no naturall nor v∣suall bread, because the vertue, power and force of Christes flesh is vnited to it and receiued with it, though to sight and ta•••• it keepe the shewe of nothing else but bread.

Phi.

What is species panis which the Fathers speake of,* 1.1761 but the vtter appea∣rance of bread, when the substaunce is altered?

Theo.

Doeth species signifie a ••hape without substaunce?

Philand.

It signifieth the shape, and not the sub∣staunce.

Theo.

Euerie creature hath his substaunce ioyned with his sen∣sible shape and forme: and therefore though the one doe not signifie the other: yet the one inferreth the other by the verie necessitie of nature: neyther hath GOD giuen vs any perfecter triall of substaunce than by sight and sense: which is sure enough, because shewes without substaunce are no creatures.

Philand.

But this in the Sacrament is miraculous: and that is the reason, why species in the Fathers doeth signifie a shewe without sub∣staunce: or as our Schooles rather like to say for perspicuities sake: ac∣cidentes without a subiect.

Theophil.

Your Schooles were perspicu∣ous, as the Lande of Aegypt was light-some, when it was couered with palpable darkenesse: but where doeth any Father speaking of the Sa∣••rament, take species for a shewe without substaunce?* 1.1762

Philand.

That is ••uerie where the meaning of the word, when they applie it to the Sacrament.

Theo.

How proue you that?

Phi.

It needeth no proofe: the very word doeth ••o signifie.

Theophil.

The worde, species, doeth no more exclude the sub∣••taunce of breade and wine in the Sacrament: than species humana, the shew,

shape and forme of a man, which you haue, doth take from you the ••ubstance & truth of mans nature. Which if you thinke it doeth looke what answere you will make to him that shall aske what lieth vnder the shape of a man in you: it must be the substance of a man, or some worse thing. And if you can keepe both the shape and substaunce of man; why may not the bread and wine do the like▪ for all the word species, which is verified of men and other creatures aswel as of the bread and wine in the mysteries?

Phi.

The comparison is not like.* 1.1763 For the bread is changed and so am not I.

Theophil.

Doe you not often change both the inward and outward man, I meane the state of body and soule?

Phi.

I change as others doe.

Theo.

You can be no christian; if you be not changed from the state in which you were born. You were born the child of Gods wrath, and seruant of sinne: if you be renewed and freed from that, then are you wholy changed.

Phi.

This is no * 1.1764 substan∣tiall change, such as we affirme to be in the bread.

Theo.

If you would proue that which you affirme, you might happen to conclude that, which now you can not.

Phi.

That is soone prooued.

Theo.

I maruell then you stay long, before you doe it: and faint so often when you begin it. You auouch that the word species in the Fathers signifieth your shewes without substance, and accidents without subiect: and when the very shew of men, which you beare about you, conuinceth that follie: you presume a substantiall change to be in the bread to helpe foorth the vse of the word, which you imagine against all learning & reason, was their meaning.

* 1.1765For the worde species, though it bee diuersely vsed among the Fathers and often iterated in this matter of the Sacrament: yet shall you neuer bring vs a∣ny one place, where it is taken for a shew without substance: and therefore by that worde you can hardly inferre the bread to be changed in substaunce, and nothing to be left besides the accidentes. Sainct Ambrose sayeth it impor∣teth as much, as an euident sight and trueth. a 1.1766 Speciem pro veritate accipien∣dam legimus. Specie inuentus vt homo. Wee read this word species to bee ta∣ken for the verie trueth (of a thing.) As Christ was found (not in shew, but) in trueth like a man. And of the Lordes cuppe,b 1.1767 Perhaps thou wilt say, speciem sanguinis non video, sed habet similitudinem. I see not the trueth of blood, but it hath the resemblance. Which obiection Ambrose repeateth shortly af∣ter in these words, * 1.1768 Similitudinem video, non video sanguinis veritatem. I see the resemblance, I see not the truth of blood. Where note that species is not one∣ly contrary to the onely likenesse and appearance of any thing, but equiualent with the trueth and nature of euery thing. Then are shewes without sub∣staunce your fansies without iudgement: you neuer receiued any such do∣ctrine from the Catholike Fathers, your selues haue deuised it of late, since barbarisme preuailed in your Schooles, and Antichrist was exalted in your churches.

Philand.

So species is nowe and then vsed: but doeth that inferre that this is the generall signification of the word wheresoeuer we finde it?

Theo.

This

sufficeth to exclude your shewes without substaunce,* 1.1769 vnlesse you can bring some better inforcement than the very word: which you can not. And yet Sainct Ambrose giueth an other vse of the worde, (and that treating of the Sacra∣mentes) which vtterly subuerteth your accidental shewes. * 1.1770 Creaturae non potest esse veritas, sed species, quae facile soluitur at que mutatur. No creature can bee (said to be) a trueth, but a shew or appearance, which is soone dis∣solued and abolished. In this sense species is all one with any creature or substaunce, which soone decaieth, as euerie mortall thing doth: and the learned Fathers writing of the Sacrament continually vse the worde to signifie the nature and kinde of euerie creature, and not the naked shewes or acci∣dentes.

Sainct Ambrose, * 1.1771 Ante benedictionem alia species nominatur: before it be blessed, it is called an other (not shewe but) kinde. f 1.1772 Grauior est ferri species, quam aquarum liquor. The kinde (or nature) of Iron (not the shewe of yron) is weightier than the liquor of water. g 1.1773 If the word of Elias were able to fet fire from heauen, non valebit Christi sermo vt species mutet elementorum: shall not the word of Christ be of strength to change the kindes (not the shapes) of these elementes? So doeth Augustine likewise. h 1.1774Non sic habendam esse speciem benedictione consecratam quemadmodum habetur in vsu quolibet: the kinde (or element) consecrated with blessing, must not be so reckoned of, as it is in common vse. i 1.1775 Idem cibus illorum qui & noster, sed significatione idem, non specie: the (Fathers of the old Testament) had the same food which we haue: but the same in signification, not in (external) kinde: k 1.1776 Aliud illi, a∣liud nos, sed specie visibili: they (dranke) one thing, we (drink) an other thing, but in visible kinde: l 1.1777 Ibi Petra Christus: nobis Christus, quod in altari Dei po∣nitur. Si speciem visibilem intendas, aliud est. To them the Rock was Christ: to vs that is Christ which is set on the altar of God. If you looke to the visible kinde, it is an other thing (than that they dranke.)

In these places you can not interprete species, a shewe without sub∣stance, vnlesse you wil transubstantiate Manna which the children of Israel did eate,* 1.1778 the rocke which they dranke of, the hatchet which Elizeus made sw••m, the bread that is in common vse without & before consecration: for these things Austen and Ambrose (comparing them with this Sacrament) do call visibiles species, visibles kindes, as they do the bread and wine proposed to the faithfull at the Lordes table.

And were you so peruerse that against the meaning of the Father••, ••nd signi∣fication of the word, you would needes haue species to bee taken for your mira∣culous and mysticall accidences, I can tell you they are like to shrinke in this change as well as the substaunce. For Ambrose saith, * 1.1779 Sermo Christi mutat species elementorum, the word of Christ changeth by your interpretation) the shewes of the elementes: which is so apparantly false, that your selues dare not abide it: And therefore species must stand, not for the outward formes and shewes, but for the thinges themselues. As Sainct Augustine speaking of the

Sacramentall bread, sayth: n 1.1780 vt sit visibilis species panis, multa grana in vnum consperguntur. Manie cornes are kneaded togither to make (not the shew, but) the visible kinde (or creature) of bread. By which it is euident that species with auncient writers in their discourses of this Sacrament, is not a shewe without a substaunce, as you vainly suppose, but a kinde or creature, which is far from accidentes hanging in the ayre, you know not how, by mira∣culous geometrie.

Philand.

Wee ground not our selues so much on the bare name of species, as on the change of the bread and wine, made by vertue of consecration: as all the * 1.1781 Fathers witnesse.

Theo.

It is a verie simple foundation to builde on a bare word, which hath many significations besides that, and any signification, rather than that, which you conceiue: and yet that is one of the best foundati∣ons you haue for your newe founde shewes without substaunce: and as for the chaunge of the sacred elementes made by the wordes of Christ, and mentioned in the Fathers: if you did not vrge your fansies on their phrases, but examine their doctrine, you should soone spie your error: which nowe you will not, you bee so wedded to the preiudice of your owne opinion.

Phi.

Doe not all the Fathers with one voice confesse a change to bee made in the elementes by the words of Consecration?

Theo.

Doe not we acknow∣ledge the same? How could vsuall bread taken of the fruites of the earth, and seruing only to feede the bodie,* 1.1782 become a Sacrament & instrument of heauen∣ly grace and life, to quicken and strengthen the soule of man, but by some great and maruelous chaunge?

Phi.

Such as none coulde perfourme, but the migh∣ty finger of God himselfe. For so S. Ambrose and others to perswade this chaunge, haue recourse to Christes eternall power and trueth.

Theo.

Yea ve∣rily.

Phi.

That confession is suff••cient to confute the doctrine which you defend.

Theo.

I see not how.

Phi.

If the bread were not changed from his former substance, it could nei∣ther bee miraculous,* 1.1783 nor neede the omnipotent power of Christ. For figures & similitudes men may make: but this mutation is wrought by the mightie pow∣er of the holy Ghost: and the manner is vnsearchable.

Theo.

Greater power & truth are required for the finishing of one Sacrament, than for the working of many miracles. Miracles not only the godly, but also the wicked haue diuerse times wrought. The Sorcerers of Egypt did some wonders. Antichrist hath his miracles, and those not a few: But Sacramentes, no Sainct, no not the chosen and elect Angels of heauen can institute. For who dare promise, who can performe the spirituall and celestiall graces of God to bee annexed to the vi∣sible signes, but only God?* 1.1784 How could water regenerate the soule, if the worde were not God? How could bread and wine norish to life euerlasting, vnlesse the same God had likewise spoken the word?

We must in al sacraments be fully persuaded of Christs infallible truth, & al∣sufficient power, before we can either beleeue, or inioy the promises. If his word might lack truth, or want power, then should our faith vanish, & these outward

elements perish without profiting vs: but with him is no changing, neither can any thing defeate his wil: & therefore when wee bee taught to looke not on the weaknes of the creatures which be corruptible, but on the perfection of his hea∣uenly word, which is puissant & predomināt ouer al things, what doth this helpe your real & corporal cōuersion of bread into Christ? What maketh this for Trā∣substantiation? God is wonderfull in this and all other his sacramentes, not by casting away substances,* 1.1785 and leauing accidences, but by working that in our hearts by the mightie power of his spirit aboue nature, which the visible signes import to our senses: and this is more maruelous in any wise mans eye, than your accidentall shewes without a subiect.

Phi.

God is maruelous in all his workes: but in this more than in any o∣ther: because the substance of the bread & wine is changed,* 1.1786 where the qualities are not.

Theo.

That change you dreame of; but who auoucheth it besides your selues? or what ancient father euer mentioned any such?

Phi.

They all confesse the change which we speake of.

Theo.

You bee so deepe in your empty shewes, that wee take your all to bee as much as none.

Phi.

Thinke you, as you list: wee knowe what wee haue.

Theo.

If your stoare bee so great, why make you such curtsie to name vs one?

Phi.

You will quarell with him, when I bring him.

Theo.

Your selfe mistrust him, before you offer him.

Phi.

I mistrust your carping, not his writing.

Theo.

If mine answere bee not sound, wherefore serue you but to refute it?

Phi.

Wel then,* 1.1787 Eusebius Emissenus hath an euident testimony for this mat∣ter. Recedat omne infidelitatis ambiguum, quandoquidem qui author est muneris, ipse est etiam testis veritatis. Nam inuisibilis sacerdos visibiles creaturas in substantiam corporis & sanguinis sui verbo secreta potestate conuertit, ita dicens, Accipite & com∣edite: hoc est corpus meū. Et sanctificatione repetita, accipite & bibite, ait. Hic est sanguis meus.* 1.1788 Ergo sicut ad nutum praecipientis Domini repente & ex nihilo substiterunt excelsa caelorum, profunda fluctuum, vasta terrarum: ita pari potestate in spiritualibus Sacramentis, vbi praecipit virtus, seruit effectus. Let all doubt of infidelitie depart, because he that is the author of the gift is also the witnesse of the trueth. For the inuisible priest turned the visible creatures into the substance of his bodie and bloud with his word (and) secret power, saying, take, eate, this is my body, and repeating the sanctification he saide, take & drinke; this is my bloud. Therefore as at the Lordes becke commaunding, the high heauens, the deepe waters, the wide earth were made on the sud∣daine of nothing: so with like force in the spiritual Sacraments, when (his) power commandeth, the effect followeth. These words be plaine enough, if either truth or authority can content you.

The.

Either shal content me, if I may be sure of either.

Phi.

Here you find both.

Theo.

Who wrate this sermon which you cite?* 1.1789

Phi.

Eusebius Emissenus.

Theo.

When liued he?

Phi.

Why doe you aske?

Theo.

Reason we knowe his age before we receiue his testimonie.

Phi.

His age I can tell you is as an∣cient as his doctrine.

Theo.

I thinke both of one antiquity. For neither the mā,

nor the matter were knowen in the church of Christ for 900. yeares and vp∣ward.

Phi.

How you be deceiued? S. Hierom maketh mention of Eusebius E∣missenus, that * 1.1790 wrate short homilies vpon the Gospels somewhat before his time.

Theo.

And that made your fellowes put his name to certaine latine homilies, that were none of his: and to beare men in hand he was a frenchman: but when he liued they can not tell.

Phi.

Yes, S. Hierom saieth hee died vnder Constantius, more than twelue hundred yeares ago.

Theo.

Eusebius Emissenus then wrate and then died: but who wrate these latine homilies that were extant in his name?

Phi.

Himselfe.

Theo.

What countriman was he?* 1.1791

Phi.

I thinke a Frenchman.

Theo.

So Canisius both your collegue, and the compiler of your huge chaos or catechisme, sayeth: ma∣rie when he liued, that hee could not tell: and therefore of his owne authoritie placeth him 200. yeres after S. Hierom with a perchaunce,* 1.1792 least if we should aske him for his proofe, he might be taken with a lie. His wordes are, Euse∣bius Emissenus Gallus,* 1.1793 cuius habentur homiliae, hoc fortè tempore claruit, Eusebius Emissenus of Fraunce, whose homilies wee haue extant, perhaps liued at this time: that is, 500. yeres after Christ.

Phi.

And so it may be.

The.

But this is not he, that S. Hierom speaketh of. For he died vnder Cōstant••us; whose raign and life ended 343. after Christ.

Phi.

The elder hee was, the better his credit for this question.

Theo.

But the worst is,* 1.1794 that Eusebius Emissenus was a Bishop in Syria, & wrate in greeke: and therefore to assigne him latine homilies, and to suppose him to bee a french∣man, was a very grosse corruption, and such as children will deride.

Phi.

Might there not be an other of that name?

Theo.

Ye as in that place, but in Fraunce there could bee none.

Phi.

Why not?

Theo.

Because Emesenus doth signifie Bishop of Emesa in Syria, where this Eusebius liued, and as S. Hierom wri∣teth, was buried at Antioch the chiefe Metropolis of Syria.

Phi.

But this is Eusebius Emissenus which Gratian alleadgeth.

Theo.

* 1.1795It is not the first word by fiue hundred, that Gratian hath altered. For Euse∣bius Emesenus Sainct Hieroms certificate is verie good: for Eusebius Emissenus the first record that we finde is in Gratian: where by the verie stile, periods, casures, members and agnominations you may perceiue him to be a latinist, & as Canisius addet••, a Frenchman. Now in what age he liued, & in what place he preached, we require some proofe before we can or will admit these things to be his, which you haue forged in his name. Emissenus must be a deriuatiue from some place: shew any such place in Europe, and then you saie somewhat for the likelyhood, though not enough for the certainty of this writer.

Philand.

What if we can not?

Theophil.

Then hee that hath but halfe an eye, may soone discerne 〈◊〉〈◊〉 treacherie.

Your Monks & Friers seeking to colour their fained holines, & late sprong faith with the reuere••d titles of a••cient fathers, pr••fered the names of Austen, Ambrose, Hierō Cyprian, Isidore, & others before diuerse of their own d•••• fe••: 〈…〉〈…〉

& finding in S. Hierom, Eusebius Emesenus to be an old writer, gaue him a new liuerie with the rest, and ascribed certaine latin homilies such as they had vnto him: whom themselues, or Gratian that first lighted on this old new wri∣ter corruptly called Eusebius Emissenus. And because the forgerie did hardly hang together, the right Eusebius beeing a Gretian and of great antiquity, Ca∣nisius the generall Atturnie for your religion, hath deuised twoe more of that name: one a french-man, that perchance, he saith, florished in the fift Centurie, and an other that * 1.1796 wrate after Gregory the great and expounded the ghos∣pels: but when either of them liued, or where they taught, neither he nor you can bring vs any proofe besides your bare and vaine supposals.

Phi.

Wil you not trust the inscription of the worke it selfe?

Theo.

That were the way to let euery frier and forgerer,* 1.1797 create new fathers at his pleasure. It is as easie for them that copie out other mens workes, to make false as true inscriptions, and so haue your Monkes plaied with euery father that was an∣cient, as the most partiall of your owne side doe confesse, and in this is too appa∣rent. For how many mens names thinke you, did this homilie beare, which you alleadge, not yet two hundreth yeres ago?

Phi.

What can I tel?

Theo.

Then I can. Looke in Walden, and in one Chapter you shal find this very ser∣mon beare three mens names.

Phi.

Is that possible?

Theo.

The lesse possible the thing: the more palpable your forging.

In the 67 chapter,* 1.1798 his aduersarie alleaged the woordes, which you bring out of Isidore, in his sermon beginning with Magnitudo caelestium. That Wal∣den doth not much impugne, but very often so calleth him: and yet at length re∣membring himselfe, he or some man for him, yeeldeth to the decrees, and calleth that writer Eusebius Emisenus by Gratians authority: marie with a single s: where now a double is gotten both into the worde, and into Gratian, and yet in the 68 chapter forgetting what he him selfe or others for him had done, he ci∣teth an other part of the same sermon vnder Anselmus name: Ratificat eandem cōparationem in sermone s••pe dicto, qui incipit Magnitudo caelestiū, Anselmus dicens: This comparison Anselmus doth ratifie in his sermon often spoken of which beginneth Magnitudo caelestium, though afterward in the same chapter he re∣turne againe to his former staggering, and call the writer of your wordes Isi∣dore or rather Eusebius.

Phi.

Let him be Isidore, or Eusebius, we * 1.1799 care not whether.

Theo.

Since the Sermon is not his, whose name it beareth, we may not suffer you to choppe names as you list: neither neede we so much as regard the words, before wee know the author: lest we reuerence lewd and late Friers vnder the names of ancient and learn•••• Fathers.

Phi.

Whatsoeuer he was, ancient he was, and taught the same doctrine, without all question, which we doe.

Theo.

His antiquitie you know not, and his doctrine you vnderstand not. For though we like not your shuffling and exchanging of names with the fathers, and broaching your fancies and heresies vnder their 〈…〉〈…〉 this wh••le sermon we can and doe admitte, as hauing no∣thing

either dissident from true antiquitie or repugnant to that which we teach.

Phi.

Will you say that doctrine of his is not repugnant to yours?

Theo.

Why should I not?

Phi.

Wil you confesse that the visible creatures are tur∣ned into the substance of christs flesh by the secret power of his word?* 1.1800

The.

His words I say, make nothing for your abolishing the substance of bread and wine, and leauing the accidents.

Phi.

He saith, the visible creatures are tur∣ned into the substance of Christs body and bloud.

Theo.

But he saith not, the substance of the visible creatures is turned into the substance of christs flesh.

Phi.

* 1.1801 How can one creature bee turned into the substance of an other, but by loosing his former substance?

Theo.

In natural mutations it is so, but this is nothing lesse than natural.

Phi.

It is diuine and supernaturall.

Theo.

And so is it likewise spirituall and mysticall: not really changing the matter and substance of the elements, but casting grace vnto nature.

Phi.

Nay he saith the substance of the creatures is changed.

Theo.

Where saith he so?

Phi.

He saith which is al one, that the visible creatures are chan∣ged into the substance of christs body.

The.

But by no material nor corporal change.

Phi.

How can the creatures be turned into christs substāce, but by a ma∣terial & corporal change?

Theo.

That is your error, not your authors addition.

Phi.

It is not possible to be otherwise.

Theo.

What if your own writer in this very case and place reproue you for a liar?

Phi.

That * 1.1802 earthly creatures shoulde be turned into Christs substance, without a materiall and substantiall change? Neuer say it: it cannot be.

Theo.

Will you looke but two lines far∣ther, and you shall see this great impossibilitie auouched by your own author. Quomodo tibi nouum & impossibile esse non debeat, quod in Christi, substantiam terre∣na & mortalia conuertuntur, te ipsum, qui in Christo es regeneratus, interroga.* 1.1803 How this to thee should neither be strange nor impossible, that mortal & earth∣ly creatures are turned into Christs substance, aske thy selfe which art rege∣nerated in Christ.* 1.1804 Somtimes since thou wast farre from life, excluded from mercie, and banished from the path of saluation as being inwardly dead, & suddenly initiated by the lawes of christ & renued by the healthfull myste∣ries, thou didst passe into the body of the church, not by sight but by faith, & thou which wert the sonne of perdition obtainedst to be made the adopted child of god by a secret puritie: remaining in the same visible measure, thou grewest inuisibly without increase of quantitie: & being thy self & the very same,* 1.1805 that thou wast (before) in processe of faith thou becamest another: in the outward (man) nothing was added, & al changed in the inward: Taking this spiritual & immaterial change of euery christiā in baptism, to shew in what sort, & how he ment that mortal & earthly creatures by cons••••ration are conuer∣ted into the substance of christ: which is far frō a corporal & substantial change, such as you would vrge by pretēce of his words in y^• creatures of bread & wine.

Phi.

This construction cannot stand:* 1.1806 that creatures should be turned into an other substance, and yet remaine in their owne and former substance: For then how are they chaunged?

Theo.

In your physical conceits it cannot: but

if you consult those Fathers that were the first introducers of this speeche, you shall finde it may. Gelasius ioyneth them both together in one sentence, the one to expound the other.* 1.1807 In diuinam transeunt spiritu sancto perficiente sub∣stantiam, permanent tamen in suae proprietate naturae. (The sacraments of the bodie and blood of Christ) passe into a diuine substance by the working of the holie Ghost: and yet remaine in the proprietie of their owne nature. And lest you shoulde cauell that they kept their former qualities and not their substance, in expresse woordes he saith, & tamen non desinit esse substantia vel natura panis & vini: and yet (for all they passe into a diuine substance) the (former) substance or nature of bread and wine ceaseth not, nor is aboli∣shed: no more than the manhood of Christ was chaunged from his former sub∣stance, when after his ascension it was replenished with diuine glorie.

Phi.

You frustrate the sayings of the fathers with your comparisons.

Theo.

They be their owne comparisons & principal intentions in those places where they speake these wordes: and therefore if you will rack the one to your length,* 1.1808 and not respect the other, you may soone force some phrases to feede your fansies. But this is not the safest way for you to walke in matters of faith: nor the rightest course for you to take to come by their meaning. You must looke how far they presse their own words, & what they would conclude, not what you l••st to conceiue: or imagine of their speaches. Howsoeuer they mention a change of the bread into the diuine essence & substance, no father auoucheth any corporal, material, or substantial change of the elements into the bodie & blood of Christ: but a spirituall, mystical and effectual annexing & vniting the one to the other, either pa••t retaining the trueth of his former and proper nature and substance.

This is apparent by those very places & sentences, which you bring to prooue a chaunge: the fathers teach not the one without the other, as you saw for e••∣ample in Gelasius and your Eusebius: and so in Cyprian:* 1.1809 Panis iste, quem do∣minus discipulis porrigebat, non effigie sed natura mutatus omnipotentia verbi factus est caro: This bread which the Lord gaue to his disciples, chaunged not in shape, but in nature by the omnipotencie of the word is made flesh: and lest you should dreame of any materiall or substantiall chaunge, as your manner is, the verie next wordes in the same sentence, are:* 1.1810 Et sicut in persona Christi huma∣nitas videbatur, & latebat diuinitas: ita sacramento visibili, ineffabiliter diuina se infundit essentia: and as in the person of Christ,* 1.1811 his humanitie was seene, his diuinitie was hidde and secret: so in the visible sacrament the diuine essence doth infuse it selfe, after an vnspeakeable manner.

Phi.

Did you bring this place for vs or against vs? you could not haue ligh∣ted on a fitter for our purpose, if you shuld haue sought these seuen yeares.

The.

I knowe it is one of your best authorities, as you make your account: and yet it is no way preiudiciall to vs, if you suffer the father him-selfe to tell out his owne tale:* 1.1812 and bee content to heare as well the ending as the entring of it. Hee saieth the bread is chaunged: in nature; into the flesh of Christ; by the almightie power of the woorde, expressing in what, into what, and by what the

bread is chaunged: moe parts you cannot make.

Phi.

Wee need not.

Theo.

And yet all these notwithstanding he meaneth no materiall nor corporall change of the bread or wine, but that, as in the person of Christ there were two distinct & perfect substances vnited and ioyned, the one his manhood that was seene, the other his godhead that was hid: euen so to the visible Sacrament persisting in his former substance, doth the diuine essence infunde it selfe after a secret and vnsearchable manner, * 1.1813 proouing the presence of an heauenly vertue to bee there by the inuisible efficience.

Philand.

If you will haue the bread keepe his proper and perfect both na∣ture and substance, what change is there made in the bread?

Theoph.

This chaunge is not the casting awaie of any thing, that was in the bread, either na∣ture or substance; but the casting vnto it of an heauenly and inuisible grace: and so Theo••orete expresseth the mutation that is in this sacrament.* 1.1814 Non natu∣ram ipsam transmutans sed naturae adiiciens gratiam. Not changing (or casting away) nature it selfe, but adding grace vnto nature. And that is S. Ambrose his meaning when hee saieth,* 1.1815 Sunt quae erant, & in aliud commutantur. (The bread and wine) are the verie same that they were (* 1.1816 both in nature and sub∣stance) and are changed into an other thing.

Philand.

How can this be that they should be changed and yet continue the same: but as wee expound it, that in substance they be chaunged, and yet in shew continue as they were before?

Theoph.

This is your fansie wee know: but the learned fathers by their change meane no such thing: they teach not any de∣traction or diminution of that which was, but an adiection and apposition of that which was not. And therefore they witnes both: as well the permanence of the elements in their former nature, as their change into an other. Chryso∣stome said as you heard before.* 1.1817 The bread (sanctified) is counted worthie to be called the Lordes bodie, etsi natura panis in ipso permansit: though the na∣ture of bread remaine there still: and Theodoret,* 1.1818 Neque enim signa illa mystica post sanctificationem recedunt à sua natura, those mysticall signes doe not by Consecration depart from their nature. And Gelasius:* 1.1819 Non tamen desinit esse substantia vel natura panis & vini: and yet the substance or nature of bread & wine doth not cease (or perish). And to this verie sacrament S. Austen ap∣pl••eth this Rule: Omnis res naturam & veritatem illarum rerum in se continet: ex quibus conficitur. Euerie thing containeth (or keepeth) the nature & truth of those things, of which it consisteth.

Phi.

You refu•••• Cyprian, you doe not expound him. He saith the nature (of the bread) * 1.1820 is changed; you prooue it remaineth: be not these contrarie?

Theo.

B•• your exposition they are, by ours they are not. For the nature of bread, wee say remaineth, and is in nothing diminished, but encreased with an heauenly vertue that is added to it. And this, though it be a chaunge to that which it was not, yet is it no change from that which it was.

Philand.

That is properly chaunged which is altered from that it was.

Theo.

And that is as properly saied to be chaunged, which is increased with that it was not,

though it be not altered in substance from that it was. The soule of man is often chaunged, but neuer in substance. The bodie from the cradle to the graue hath many increases and changes, but in substance persisteth the same that it was be∣fore it came into the worlde. Euerie thing that groweth, keepeth that it had, & atchiueth that it had not, and yet is that a change.

But what neede we other examples, since the fathers themselues doe both by their words, & similitudes shew what changes they ment? A childe is * 1.1821 changed by baptisme: not in loosing or altering the substance of bodie or soul which hee had: but in attaining the grace & blessing of God which he had not. The Lorde himselfe is * 1.1822 changed in person by his ascension, not that the trueth, shape or circumscription of his flesh are abolished, but endued with immortall glory. So shall he * 1.1823 alter our vile bodies not by spoiling them of their substance, but by imparting to them of his brightnes, and as S. Paul writeth,* 1.1824 We shall not all sleepe, but we shall be changed.

Phi.

S. Pauls wordes are nothing to the Sacrament.

Theo.

They are somwhat to the vse of the word which I proposed: and yet Ireneus doth not sticke to resemble the change in the Sacrament to the verie hope and assurance which our bodies now haue of that glorie before they be changed, or haue cast off their mortal and earthly corruption. As, saith he,* 1.1825 the bread which is of the earth receiuing the inuocation of god, is now no common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two things, an earthlie & an heauenlie, so our bodies receiuing the Eucharist, be now not corruptible (that is not wholly destina∣ted to corruption) [as] hauing hope of resurrection.

Phi.

But S. Ambrose repeateth * 1.1826 examples of corporall and substantial changes, when he would proue that blessing in this sacrament ouerbeareth na∣ture.

Theo.

S. Ambrose doth not say,* 1.1827 that the bread is changed after the same manner, but meaning to shew that praier and benediction worketh where nature cannot, yea many times altereth nature: hee bringeth seauen examples, whereof fiue are no substantial changes: & in the end concludeth, that if the prai∣ers & speech of mē could turn & alter things aboue & against nature, much more can the word of christ bring to passe that the elements shal bee that they were, & yet be changed into that they were not, and which by nature they are not.

Phi.

He hath no such wordes in that chapter.

Theo.

His conclusion there is this, Sermo ergo Christi, qui potuit ex nihilo facere quod non erat, non potest ea quae sunt, in id mutare quod non erant?* 1.1828 The worde of Christ, who could of nothing make that which was not, can hee not change those things which are, into that which before they were not? And in the next booke intitled De Sacra∣mentis, assuming the same matter, and producing almost all the same examples and arguments: he resolueth in these wordes,* 1.1829 Si ergo tanta vis est in sermone Domini Iesu, vt inciperent esse quae non erant, quanto magis operatorius est, vt sint quae erant, & in aliud commutentur? If there bee such force in the worde of the Lord Iesu, that the things which were not, (at his worde) beganne to be, how much more can it worke this, that they shal be the same they were, &

(yet) be changed into an other thing?* 1.1830 And to shew vs an example, how a thing may be that it was, & yet be changed: he forthwith addeth, Tu ipse eras, sed era•• vetus creatura, posteae quam consecratu•• es, noua creatura esse caepisti: Vis scire quam nouae creatura? Omnis inquit, in Christo nouae creatura. Accip•• ergo, quemadinodū sermo Christi creaturam omnem mutare consueuerit: & mutat quando vult institu∣ta naturae.* 1.1831 Thou thy selfe wast: but thou wast an oulde creature: after when thou wast Baptised, thou begannest to be a new creature. Wilt thou know how (true it is that thou art) a new creature? Euery one, saith the Apostle, (is) in Christ a new creature. Learn then how the word of Christ is accusto∣med to chaunge euery creature▪ and when he will, he altereth the course of nature•• keeping the same similitude of Baptisme for the explication of himselfe that the rest do: & thereby declaring he meaneth nothing lesse than that the mat∣ter and substance of the bread and wine should be changed. For he that is bap∣tised, suffereth no materiall, substantiall nor corporall chaunge: though hee bee borne a fresh and putte on Christ: and euen so the sacred elements are turned into the fleshe of our Sauiour, without abolishing their former nature or substance.

Phi.

If these places of S. Cyprian and S. Ambrose conclude not for vs: certainly they conclude nothing against vs: and therefore you cannot refell our assertion by them.

Theo.

I doe not. I shew, the places which you take most hold of, haue no such sequel as you surmise: & so your transubstantiation is your late and priuate imagination, without all antiquite.

Phi.

Call you that late or priuate, which hath beene the generall and constant confession of all Christen∣dome for these * 1.1832 fifteene hundereth yeres?

Theo.

It doth you good to crake, though there be neither trueth nor sense in that you say. Hath al christendom for these fifteene hundereth yeres confessed the substance of bread and wine at the Lords table to be changed into the reall & natural body & bloud of Christ?

Phi.

It hath.

Theo.

How shal we know that?

Phi.

You may find it in their writings.

Theo.

How chanceth then you can not shew one that for 800 yeares made that confession?

Phi.

We can.

Theo.

You do not as yet.

Phi.

Yeas we * 1.1833 haue done it. S. Augustine told you plainly, the substance of breade and wine did not remaine, but only the qualities: and venerable Bede said, there was the shew, but not the substance of bread. Be not these direct and faire proofes?

Theo.

Fairely forged they be: but otherwise the writers themselues were neuer of that opinion.

Phi.

I haue proued by S. Chrysostome and S. Cyril that it is no bread.

Theo.

No bare; nor common bread, as our sense doth iudge; but yet the nature of bread still remaineth though endued with a more diuine and mightie grace.

Phi.

The bread is chaunged as S. Cyprian and S. Ambrose teache.

Theo.

Not by loosing that it had, but by annexing that it had not.

Phi.

It is conuerted into the substance of Christ.

Theo.

But by no materal nor cor∣porall chaunge of the former substance.

Phi.

This is your deluding of fathers.

The.

That is your abusing of them.

Phi.

You recal their wordes to your liking.

Theo.

And you inforce thē against

their meaning.

Phi.

Who shall iudge of that?

Theo.

Not you.

Phi.

Nor you.

Theo.

Let their owne mouthes be trusted.

Phi.

I am well contented.

Theo.

Then are you condemned. For where their wordes beare our exposition as wel as yours:* 1.1834 you vrge a corporal and substantial change on their speaches in euery place: which they in plaine wordes protest to be no part of their faith.

Phi.

Where find you that protestation?

Theo.

Is your memorie so short, that I must now make a new repetition?

Phi.

You went about to prooue that the substance of bread remained.

The.

And that which I professed, I performed: you may turne back & view the words.* 1.1835 The substance of bread doth not cease to be: the signes remaine in their former substance. As touching the substan∣ces of the creatures they are the same after Consecration that they were be∣fore. And that was Cyprians meaning when he said,* 1.1836 Corporalis substantiae reti∣nens speciem: retaining their kind of corporall substance: as also this substan∣tiall bread. This is warrant sufficient in any Christian mans iudgement for vs so to interpret the fathers words, as we do not abolish the substance of bread, which they confesse remaineth.

Phi.

Had that beene their doctrine, would their after-commers thinke you,* 1.1837 haue so soone swarued from their faith?

Theo.

They did not. That verie con∣fession, that the substance of bread remained after consecration, dured almost a thousand yeares in most parts of the West Church, and namely in this realme.

Omit Bertram that liued 830. after Christ, whose booke is extant, purpose∣ly and largely treating of this matter. Walafridus an other of that time giueth flat euidence against your chaunging of substances in the sacrament, when hee saith,* 1.1838 In caena, quam ante traditionem suam vltimam cum Discipulis (Christus) habuit, post Paschae veteris solemnia, corporis & sanguinis sui sacramenta in panis & vini substantia eisdem Discipulis tradidit. In the supper which (Christ) had with his Disciples last before hee was betraied, after the solemnities of the olde Passeouer, he deliuered to the same disciples the sacraments of his bodie and blood in the substance of bread and wine. And so doeth Druthmarus re∣porting our Sauiours act at his last supper, in these words,* 1.1839 Transferens spiri∣tualiter panem in corpus suum, & vinum in sanguinem: (Christ) chaunging the bread into his bodie, and the wine into his bloode spirituallie. And so Pas∣chasius, though you haue here & there enterlaced that book to help your selues, and printed it, vnder the name of Rabanus as well as of Paschasius.* 1.1840 Panis con∣firmat cor hominis, & vinum letificat, &c. propter quod in eadem substantia iure ce∣lebratur hoc mysterium salutis. Bread confirmeth and wine cheereth the hart, &c. wherefore in that substance is this mysterie of (our) saluation worthi∣ly celebrated.

Waleramus Bishop of Medburg a thousand yeares after Christ continued the same doctrine, though some Italians then beganne to fortifie their new con∣ceits of shewes without substance. His wordes are,* 1.1841 Materiae vel substantia Sa∣crificij non simpla est, sicut nec pontifex solius diuinae, vel-humanae solius substantiae est. Est ergo tam in Pontifice quā in sacrificio diuina substātia, est & terrena, Terrena in

vtroque est illud quod corporaliter vel localiter videri potest: diuina in vtroque verbum inuisibile, quod in principio erat Deus apud Deum. The matter or substance of the sacrifice is not single,* 1.1842 as also the high priest himself, is neither of a diuine sub∣stance only, nor of an humane only. There is then as wel in the high Priest as in the sacrifice an heauenly substance, there is also an earthly substance•• The earthly substance in thē both is that which may corporally & locally be seen. The heauenly in them both is the inuisile word, which in the begin∣ning was God with God.

The Church of England, euen to the conquest held the same Doctrine, and taught it to the people of this Land in their publike homilies which are yet to be seene of good record in the Saxon tongue. The sermon then read on Easter day, throughout their Churches is a manifest declaration of that which I say: where amongst others, these words are occurrent.* 1.1843 The holy font water that is called the welspring of life is like in shape to other waters, and is sub∣iect to corruption: but the holy Ghosts might commeth to the corruptible water, through the Priests blessing, and it can after wash the bodie and soul from all sinne through Ghostly might. Beholde now we see two things in this one creature. After true nature that water is corruptible water, and af∣ter Ghostly mystery, hath hallowing might. So also if we behold that holie housell after bodily vnderstanding, then see we that it is a creature corrupti∣ble & mutable:* 1.1844 if we acknowledge therein ghostly might, thē vnderstād we that life is therein, and that it giueth immortalitie to them that eate it with beliefe. Much is betwixt the inuisible might of the holy housel, & the visible shape of his proper nature. It is naturally corruptible bread, and corrupti∣ble wine, and is by might of Gods word truly Christes bodie and his bloud: not so notwithstanding bodily, but Ghostly. Much is betwixt the bodie Christ suffered in, and the body that is hallowed to housell. The body true∣ly that Christ suffered in was borne of the flesh of Mary, with bloud, & with bone, with skinne, and with sinewes, in humane limmes, with a reasonable soul liuing:* 1.1845 and his Ghostly body, which wee call the housell, is gathered of many cornes: without bloud and bone, without limme, without soul.* 1.1846 And therefore nothing is to be vnderstood therein bodily, but al is Ghostly to be vnderstood.

Phi.

What care we for your Saxon recordes?

Theo.

Lesse care we for your Romish & Monckish recordes so lately and grossely forged, as we haue proued: yet this to your inward grief you may now see: & shal an other day to your vtter confusion feele, that your nouelties touching the Sacrament were neuer hard of in the Church of England,* 1.1847 nor in the Church of Christ, til Lancfrancus, An∣selmus & other Italians a thowsand yeres after christ, came in with their Anti∣christiā deuises and inuentions: expounding Species and forma panis for the qua∣lities & accidents of bread without any subiect or substance: which once taking place you fel amaine both to sacrilegious sophismes against trueth, and rebel∣lious practises against Princes; & ceased not til you brought them to their hight

in your late Laterane Councell vnder Innocentius the third, 1215 yeares af∣ter Christ. This is your Catholicisme that you so much vaunt of, which the Christian world was vtterly ignorant of for almost a thousand yeares; and to the which you would now reduce the simple with a shew of holines; pretending greate grauitie and admirable antiquitie with bolde faces and eger speaches, though you be void of both, if you were well examined.

Phi.

Were the doctrine of elder ages in some doubt, which we knowe to be fully for vs; yet you confesse these last fiue hundreth yeares are cleare on our side.

Theo.

The miter and Scepter were yours:* 1.1848 the mysterie of iniquiiie wor∣king as was foretold; and infecting the West Church with hypocrisie and here∣sie, as fast as the Turke oppressed the East with rage & tyrannie: Yet in euerie of these last & most corrupted ages, God raised a number of innocent and simple men, with the confession of their mouthes, and expence of their liues, to witnesse his trueth against the pride and fury of their aduersaries, whome your holie fa∣ther hanged, burned, and otherwise murdered for repining at his proceedings, that whome with honour and ease he could not allure: at lest he might quaile with terror and torment.

Phi.

Shoulde wee leaue the fellowship of holie Popes, famous Prelates mighty Princes, learned and Religious Moncks and Friers, yea Saints:* 1.1849 and ioyne our selues to a fewe condemned and infamous heretikes, as you doe?

Theo.

That which is pretious and admirable before men, may be odious & detestable before God. The dignities of men cannot deface the truth of Christ; the higher their states, the greater their falles, if they did oppose themselues a∣gainst the highest.

Phi.

You say they did.

Theo.

I doe not: but this I say, that if the respect of their externall and temporall glorie, be the ground of your con∣science, you haue a wicked affection as well as Religion. To follow men a∣gainst God, is to magnifie them afore God.

Phi.

You condemne them for cast-awaies.

Theo.

I am not their iudge.* 1.1850 He that made them, might be mercifull to them amiddest the defects and dangers of those daies, as he hath been to some in all ages and places: yet that is no safetie for you to defend their open errors, and wilfully to continue their wickednes.

Phi.

Were not our fathers religious and holy men?

Theo.

Iustifie not your fathers against God, lest their mouthes condemne you for a pernicious ofsprng. God will be glorified, when he iudgeth, say you and your fatther•• what you can to the contrary. Reprooue not the sharpnes of his iustice, which he neuer sheweth but for great and vrgent cause: submit your selues rather, and acknow∣ledge it is his vndeserued, and yet not vnwoonted mercie that you be not consu∣med as your fathers were before you, but haue yet time and warning to rep••nt.

Phi.

And are you such Saints that you ••eede no repentance?* 1.1851

Theo.

Wee desire to liue no longer, than we conf••sse before heauen and earth, that as God hath beene righteous in reuenging the sinnes and iniquities of our fathers, by taking his trueth from them, and leauing them to the power of darkenes, and kingdome of Antichrist: so he might most iustly for our vngodlines & vnthank∣fulnes

haue wrapped vs in the same confusion and destruction: saue that of his infinite and vnspeakeable mercy, he woulde haue his Gospell preached afresh for a witnes to all Nations before he come to iudgement:* 1.1852 to make all men inex∣cusable, that haue either not beleeued, or not obeyed the truth. And this causeth vs, not onely with all that is within vs, to giue glorie to his name for so great a blessing, but to beseech him, that though we be lighted on the ends of the world when charitie waxeth cold,* 1.1853 and faith is skant found on the face of the earth, we may not be caried away with the error of the wicked to perdition; especially not to followe the way of Cain, that dipped his hands in his brothers bloode; nor take the wages of Balaam, to curse and reuile the people of God; nor perish in the contradiction of Corah, for resisting both God and the Magistrate: but rather that wee may be sanctified and saued by the might of his word, and store of his mercy laid vp in Christ his sonne for all that beleeue him, and call vp∣on him.

Phi.

God send vs such part as our fathers had.

Theo.

You be so displeased with God for punishing the sinnes of your fathers with blindnes and error in these later ages,* 1.1854 that now you will none of his light, nor grace, though he of∣fer it freely to saue your soules: but if you will needes perish, your owne bloode be on your owne heades: yet haue vs excused, if we thinke our sinnes heauie e∣nough, though wee adde not thereto the neglect of his worde, and contempt of his trueth as you doe. In the knowledge of God and reuerence of his iudge∣ments there is a path way to repentaunce, and hope of mercy: in the proude dis∣like of his seueritie towards others, and s••ubberne refusall of his goodnes to∣wards our selues, there is nothing but an heaping of extreme vengeaunce, which shall consume the wicked and impenitent resisters of his word and spirit.

Phi.

We be not of that number.

Theo.

Were you not; you would be more carefull to search, and willing to embrace the trueth of Christ once vnderstoode with all readines and lowlines of minde, knowing that God resisteth the proud and giueth grace to the humble, and not with an high-looking and self-plea∣sing perswasion, that all is yours, neglect your duty to God and man.

Phi.

We obserue both.

Theo.

You obserue neither.

Subiection to your lawfull Prince you haue forsaken, and not onely fledde the Realme,* 1.1855 and incited others to doe the like, but the Christian alleageance, which the Prince requireth of her subiects you impugne with shifts and slaun∣ders, in fauo••r of him, who wickedly and iniuriously taketh vpon him to be the supreme Moderator of earthly kingdomes, & chiefe disposer of princes Crowns: and so fast are you lincked in confederacie with him, that in open view of all men you will allow no Prince to beare the sword longer than shall like him, but proclaime rebellions of subiects against their Soueraignes to be iust & ho∣norable warres, if he authorize them by his Censures.

And where, to cloake your wicked and enormous attempts you boldely sur∣mised, that you did, whatsoeuer you did, for that Religion which was ancient & Catholike: we haue presently taken you so tardie & short of your reckoning that

for sixe of the greatest and cheefest points now in question betwixt the Church of England and the Church of Rome, and reformed in this Realme by publike authoritie: you cannot bring vs so much as one ancient & euident testimony, that your faith and Doctrine was euer taught or receiued in the primatiue church of christ, and yet you please your selues in your owm conceits, and compasse the earth to * 1.1856 get prosilites fit for such teachers, whom you may traine vp in error, and vse as instruments to catch vnstable soules, and fier vnquiet heades: that you by them may disturbe realmes and fishe for Princes thrones and liues in troubled waters.

Phi.

All this is as false, as God is true.* 1.1857

Theo.

God himselfe shall skant be trueth if you may be the iudges: except hee take your parts. But facing and craking laid aside, you must referre the iudgement of your doings and sayings to others, and not to your selues.

Phi.

To Catholikes I am content.

The.

They must be then of your instructing: that is, such as will trust neither fathers nor Scriptures against your Canons: otherwise in that you haue saide they shall find no great cause to like your impugning the Princes power, & right to esta∣blish Lawes within her owne lande without the Popes leaue: and to hold her Crowne against his censures: and as litle shall they find to cal you, or count you Catholikes.

Phi.

Men of your own pitch will soone assent to any thing.

Theo.

Let them be but indifferent and weigh what you haue brought.

Phi.

More we can bring, when we see our times.

The

It skilleth not how much, but how sound that is which you can bring.

Phi.

Of that hereafter: and yet in the meane time there be many other thinges besides these that you haue handled, that * 1.1858 must be discussed, before we can be pronounced no Catholikes. And as in these you seeeme with wresting and wrenching to haue some aduan∣tage: so in those we could forthwith confound you.

The.

Euen as you haue doone in these.

Phi.

A great deale more readily if I had time to stay the triall of them: but this holy tide I must spend in other matters of more importance.

Theo.

What: In spredding newes, that the king of Spain doth stay but for the next summer?

Phi.

We meddle not with forraine affaires,

Theo.

A * 1.1859 number of you be better seene in policie, than in diuinitie: you were borne belike to be rulers, though it be but of Rebels as Sanders was, that thought it a praise to take the field in person against his Prince.

Phi.

My trauell is not to that end.

Theo.

You leaue that for others: and trauel to sound the harts of your adherents, whether they be in number, welth and zeale likely and readie to giue assistance, if any should inuade.

Phi.

What vnchristian coniectures you haue of vs:

Theo.

None but such as your owne deedes and wordes occasion.

Phi,

What cause haue we giuen you to speake this of vs?

Theo.

What greater cause can you giue,* 1.1860 than openly to auouch as you haue done in your Defence of Catholiks (as you call them) y^• rebellions a∣gainst such Princes as the Pope deposeth are godly, iust & honourable wars?

Phi.

If hee may depose them they are.

Theo.

You haue in print affirmed both, and sought to proue them with all your might: and therefore what shal we

thinke your secret whispering and recon••ling to the Church of Rome is, but a craftie bayte of Malcontentes to make rebels?

Phi.

The parties themselues can witnesse we neuer mention any such thing in our absolution. To them we appeale for record.

Theo.

For my part I thinke you doe not: It were too grosse conspiracie & treason to take vowes and oths of subiects against their Prince by name: and therefore if you should take that open course you were worthie to ride to Tyburne not only for traytors but also for disards.* 1.1861 But when you reconcile them, you take assurance of them by vow, oth, or other adiuration that they shall embrace the Catholike faith and hold Communion & vnitie with the Church of Rome for euer after.

Phi.

Why should we not?

Theo.

Then when it pleaseth my Lord the Pope to depriue the Prince and to excommunicate al that assist or agnise her for a lawfull ma∣gistrate, what must your reconciled sort doe: Is it not against their oth & faith giuen to you at their restitution to the bosome of the Catholike Church (as you terme it) to obay their Prince against the censures of your Church?

Phi.

I haue hast in my way Theophilus: and I haue said as much as I wil at this time.

Theo.

I can hold you Philander no longer than you li••t: but yet remember this as you ride by the way, which I reiterate, because both your Seminaries shall think the better of it: that as many as you reconcile, so long as you teach, this for a point of faith, * 1.1862 that the Pope may depose Princes and must bee obayed in those his censures of all that will be Catholikes, so many both heretikes against God, and traytors against the Prince, you hatch vnder the hoode of religion: and also that the thinges now reformed in the Church of England are both catholik and christian, notwithstanding your fierce bragges, and fiery wordes, lately sent vs in your RHEMISH Testament.

To the KING euerlasting, immortall, inuisible, vnto GOD which is only wise, be honour and praise for euer and euer. Amen

Notes

• * 1.1

  Vincentius Lirinens▪ ad∣uers. haeres.
• * 1.2

  How Vincen∣tius defineth Catholikes.
• * 1.3

  Vincēs. aduers. haeres.
• * 1.4

  Vincent. Ibidē.
• * 1.5

  Ibidem.

  Quod semper, vbique & ab omnibus credi∣tum est.
• * 1.6

  Worshipping of Images is against the Scriptures.
• * 1.7

  It hath not been belee∣ued at all times.
• * 1.8

  Neither in all places nor of all persons.
• * 1.9

  Sigebert. in anno 755.
• * 1.10

  Continuationes Bedae anno 792. The Church of England against Ima∣ges.
• * 1.11

  The churches of Fraunce, Italie & Ger∣manie, condē∣ned the se∣cond councell of Nice.
• * 1.12

  Regino, lib. 2. anno 794.
• * 1.13

  Hin••mar. Re∣mens. contra Hincmar. Ian∣dunensem epist. cap. 20.

  The Councel of Nice the second refu∣ted by a gene∣rall Synode of Germanie.

  A whole book written in the refutation of the 2. Nicene Councell by Charles and his Bishops.

  The Monkes haue razed our Nice, and put in Con∣stantinople. Vrspergens. in anno 793.

  That Councel was assem∣bled at Nice and not at Constantino∣ple.
• * 1.14

  Tomo Concil. 3. admonit. Su∣rij ad lector. de Synod. Francof. ••ol. 226.
• * 1.15

  Augu. Steuch. de Donat. Con∣stant. lib. 2. numero 60.
• * 1.16

  Adon. aetase 6. Auent. lib. 4. saith, Scitae Graeco••um de adorandis Ima∣ginibus rescissa sunt.
• * 1.17

  Their Monks and Friers be∣ing worship∣ers of Image•• themselues, would not be∣leeue that the 2. Nicen Coū∣cel was con∣demned for decreeing Images to b•• worshipped.
• * 1.18

  The booke extāt agreeth with this re∣port of Hinc∣marus.
• * 1.19

  The west Church 800. yeares after Christ suffred stories to be painted and carued in the Church, but not to be wor∣shipped, as the seconde Councell of Nice conclu∣ded.
• * 1.20

  The Grecians were not so brutish as to decree diuine honour to stockes.
• * 1.21

  The west Church refu∣sed to giue any externall honor to images.
• * 1.22

  Greg. lib. 7. epist. 109.
• * 1.23

  Stories pain∣ted in the Church, but no picture worshipped.
• * 1.24

  Sinne to wor∣••hip pictures.
• * 1.25

  Gregor. lib. 9 epist. 9.

  The scriptures prohibite the wor••hipping of pictures. Ambros. de obi∣•••••• Theodos. Error & wic∣kednes to worship the Crosse that Christ died on.

  Aug. de mori∣bus ecclesiae Ca∣tholicae. lib. ••. cap. 34.
• * 1.26

  Bowing and burning in∣cense to the Image of Christ obiect∣ed to heretik•• as Idolatrie. August. de hae∣resib. haeres. 7. Epipha. in 80. haeres. anaceph•• Epipha. lib. 1. ••om. 2. haeres. 27.
• * 1.27

  Iren. li. 1. ca. 24.
• * 1.28

  The worship∣ing of Christs Image is ido∣latrie.
• * 1.29

  Exod. 20. Deut. 5.
• * 1.30

  Ephes. 5.
• * 1.31

  Phil 3.
• * 1.32

  Bodily or ghostly honor giuen to any thing which God prohibi∣teth is Idola∣trie.
• * 1.33

  Exod. 20.
• * 1.34

  God prohibi∣teth the wor∣shipping of his own Image.
• * 1.35

  Deut. 4.
• * 1.36

  Esai. 40.
• * 1.37

  Ibidem.
• * 1.38

  Moses & Esay referre the secōd precept to any Image made with hands and erected vnto God.
• * 1.39

  The later part of the 2. pre∣cept forbid∣••th to worship that which the first did forbid to make.
• * 1.40

  Esa. 42.
• * 1.41

  1. Cor. ••.
• * 1.42

  An Image made by man vnto God, is but a disho∣nour vnto God. Deut. 27.
• * 1.43

  Esa. 40.
• * 1.44

  Euery Image erected vnto God is an Idol.
• * 1.45

  Deut. 27. Sapient. 14. Esa. 44.
• * 1.46

  The Idola∣trous Iewes pretended to worship the Image of God when they set vp the calfe.
• * 1.47

  Exod. 32. vers. ••.
• * 1.48

  Iudic. 17.
• * 1.49

  Iudic. 2.
• * 1.50

  Baal was set vp, for the Image of god.
• * 1.51

  Ose. 2.
• * 1.52

  Esa. 40.46.
• * 1.53

  Ambr. in Psal. 118. sermo. 10.
• * 1.54

  Origen. contra Celsum, lib. 7. The Heathen did not take their Images for Goddes.
• * 1.55

  Lactant. de fals. religione, lib. 2. cap. 20.
• * 1.56

  Clemen. recogni∣tio. ad Iac. lib. 5. Aug. in Psal. 113. concione 2.
• * 1.57

  Marke well this shi••••, and tel me what the Papistes lacke of it. Rom. 1
• * 1.58

  It is wickeder Idolatrie to worship an Image than to worship a creature.
• * 1.59

  A greater sin for those that know God, to set vp an Image vnto him than for those that knew him not.
• * 1.60

  The figure of a man set vp vnto God is an Idole as well as the figure of a beast. Deut. 4. Rom. 1.
• * 1.61

  Psal. 115. Esa. 44.
• * 1.62

  An horrible picture of the Trinitie with three faces in the popish praier bookes.
• * 1.63

  Horae Mariae Impressae per Iohan. le Prest. impens. Rob. Valen••. 1555.
• * 1.64

  Nicen. Synod. 2. actione 2.
• * 1.65

  Sapien. 14.
• * 1.66

  You doe de∣fend them in your Rhemish Testament, fol. 345.
• * 1.67

  Esa. 44. Deut. 27.
• * 1.68

  The artifici∣all figure of Christs hu∣mane flesh may not be worshipped.
• * 1.69

  Lactant. de fals. religio. lib. 2. cap. 2.
• * 1.70

  Lactant. Ibidē.
• * 1.71

  Lactant. li. 2. cap. 19.
• * 1.72

  Christ must be worshipped with al humi∣litie, but not his Image, be∣cause that is not Christ.
• * 1.73

  Earthly simi∣litudes are al the proofes that Papists haue for ado∣ration of Images.
• * 1.74

  The Seates & seales of prin∣ces make no∣thing, for ado∣rat••on of Images.
• * 1.75

  An Image can teach vs no∣thing of that we should beholde in Christ.
• * 1.76

  Christ hath left better & safer meanes to remember him, than by an Image: which papists leaue & pre∣ferre their own deuises before his.
• * 1.77

  1. Cor. 10.
• * 1.78

  Colos. 3.
• * 1.79

  Ephes. 5.
• * 1.80

  By what meanes and waies the holy Ghost occasioneth vs to remem∣ber the sonne of God.
• * 1.81

  He hath a dull heart that re∣mēbreth not Christ till he see an Image.
• * 1.82

  What com∣modities the Papists say they sucke out of Images.
• * 1.83

  All these fa∣thers are wre∣sted by papists from their right mea∣ning.
• * 1.84

  2. Thes. 2.
• * 1.85

  The Papists greedily em∣brace other mens forge∣ries & many of their own for adoration of Images.
• * 1.86

  Nice. Concil. 2. act. 6. Ibidem.
• * 1.87

  Ibidem. Ambros. in Psal. 118 Con∣cio. 2.
• * 1.88

  Great diffe∣rēce between the seruices & Images of God & men.
• * 1.89

  The Simili∣tude of ho∣noring the original by the Image answered.
• * 1.90

  No Creature, nor Image capable of Christs honor because it is diuine.
• * 1.91

  Lib. de falsa religio. cap. 2.
• * 1.92

  The Fathers make Christ the Image of God, and not a peece of wood to bee the Imgae of Christ.
• * 1.93

  If an Image must haue Christs honor, ergo it must be God.
• * 1.94

  Mar. 4. Luke 4.
• * 1.95

  Images may haue no di∣uine honor, & Christ will hau•• no ciuill salutations nor friendly greetings.
• * 1.96

  In Psal. 118. sermo. 10.
• * 1.97

  Christ ac∣knowledgeth the poore to bee his I∣mage, and yet it were wic∣kednes to wor∣shippe them.
• * 1.98

  Men are the liuing Images of christ made by the handes of GOD himselfe.
• * 1.99

  The Image which is made for Christ, is no more like him than it is to any other of the saintes or wicked.
• * 1.100

  Making and worshiping of Images fal••ly fathered on the Apostles.
• * 1.101

  Damasc. lib. 4. cap. 17. & Nice∣pho. lib. 2. cap. 7.
• * 1.102

  A fable of Christ pain∣ting his own face.
• * 1.103

  Euseb. lib. 1. cap. 13.
• * 1.104

  Distin••t. 15. § S. Ro••ana.
• * 1.105

  Of such legēds the Church of Rome hath plentie.
• a 1.106

  Damasc. lib. 4. cap. 17.

  Citatur ab A∣driano in epist. sua Nicen••

  Synod. 2. act. 2.
• * 1.107

  What shame haue they left that make such places in the fathers names?
• * 1.108

  What shame haue they left that make such places in the fathers names?
• * 1.109

  What shame haue they left that make such places in the fathers names?
• b 1.110

  This place is not found in all S. Basils Epistles, & yet there are ex∣tant of his 180; and many of them not fouer lines a peece, so that all were preserued, sauing this that was neuer wri••••••n.
• * 1.111

  If that were Adrians Epi∣stle he might soone be de∣ceiued: but it seemeth to be rather a late forgerie in Adriās name.
• * 1.112

  Infinite forge∣geries haue beene cōmit∣ted in the fa∣thers names, as appeareth at this day in al their works.

  The west Bi∣shops that re∣futed the 2. Nicene coun∣cel & al autho∣rities one af∣ter an other, neuer mentio∣ned this place: & therefore it hath beene put in since their time.
• * 1.113

  The Epistle hath neither trueth, lear∣ning, reason nor sense.
• * 1.114

  Seuen notori∣ous lies repug∣nant to al the Church sto∣ries, touched in one corner of this Epistle.
• * 1.115

  Seuen notori∣ous lies repug∣nant to al the Church sto∣ries, touched in one corner of this Epistle.
• * 1.116

  Seuen notori∣ous lies repug∣nant to al the Church sto∣ries, touched in one corner of this Epistle.
• * 1.117

  Seuen notori∣ous lies repug∣nant to al the Church sto∣ries, touched in one corner of this Epistle.
• * 1.118

  Seuen notori∣ous lies repug∣nant to al the Church sto∣ries, touched in one corner of this Epistle.
• * 1.119

  Seuen notori∣ous lies repug∣nant to al the Church sto∣ries, touched in one corner of this Epistle.
• * 1.120

  Seuen notori∣ous lies repug∣nant to al the Church sto∣ries, touched in one corner of this Epistle.
• * 1.121

  The scriptures alleaged in Adrians Epist.
• * 1.122

  Genes. 1.
• * 1.123

  Genes. 2.
• * 1.124

  Genes. 4.
• * 1.125

  Genes. 8.
• * 1.126

  Genes. 28.
• * 1.127

  If the scripturs be not horri∣bly abused, let Images on Gods name be adored.
• a 1.128

  Esa. 19.
• b 1.129

  Psal. 95.
• c 1.130

  Psal. 25.
• d 1.131

  Psal. 26.
• e 1.132

  Psal. 44.
• f 1.133

  Psal. 4.
• * 1.134

  Children would not thus play with Scrip∣tures.
• * 1.135

  The brasen serpent made by Moses.
• * 1.136

  Iohn 3.
• * 1.137

  Numb. 21.
• * 1.138

  1. King. 18.
• * 1.139

  And broken in peeces by by Ezechias when it was abused.
• * 1.140

  Hebr. 9.
• * 1.141

  The Cheru∣bins not seen much lesse worshipped. Tertul. de Idolatria.
• * 1.142

  Fathers abu∣sed by Adrian, as well as scriptures.
• * 1.143

  Nicen. Synod. 2. act. 2.
• * 1.144

  Eight fathers peruerted in this one E∣istle.
• * 1.145

  The fathers draw simili∣tudes from prophane things, and Adrian wre∣steth them vn∣to diuine things.
• * 1.146

  Hierom made to speake opē Impietie.
• * 1.147

  No such thing in al Hieroms workes.
• * 1.148

  The place of Basill is set amidst these deprauations of Scriptures and fathers. The same place other∣wise repeated in the same Councell, and therefore the first or the last must needes be forged.

  Nicen Synod. act. 4 ex ep. Basil. ad Iulian. Impe∣rator.
• * 1.149

  The Apostles did not prohi∣bite the ma∣king of Ima∣ges in spe∣ci••l wordes, because God had done it sufficiently before.
• * 1.150

  Rom. 7.
• * 1.151

  Rom. 2.
• * 1.152

  Rom. 1.
• * 1.153

  1. Ioh. 5.
• * 1.154

  August. quaest. super Iudic. li. 7. ••••p. 41.
• * 1.155

  Gedeons E∣phod was an Idol, though it were not the Image, of a false God. August. Ibidem.
• * 1.156

  Tertul. de Idolae∣tria.
• * 1.157

  Isido. Originū lib. 5.
• * 1.158

  An Image worshipped is a false God, & consequēt∣ly an Idole.
• * 1.159

  Quaest. super Iosua. lib. 6. cap. 29.
• * 1.160

  The Idole of the heart.
• * 1.161

  August. de verbis Dom. secundum Mat. sermo. 6.
• * 1.162

  Idem in Ioan. tract. 19.
• * 1.163

  Hieron. in Iere. cap. 32.
• * 1.164

  Euery false opinion of God is an Idoll.

  Hieron. in Esaiae cap. 2.
• * 1.165

  Hieron. in Ose. cap. 4.
• * 1.166

  August. de consens. Euan∣gelist. li. 1. ca. 18.

  To serue God as we list and not as he will, is idolatrie.

  Why the ser∣uing of God otherwise thā he willeth is Idolatrie.
• * 1.167

  Deut. 12.
• * 1.168

  Esa. 1.
• * 1.169

  Mat. 15.
• * 1.170

  Esa. 29.
• * 1.171

  The worship∣ing of Christ by an Image except himself commaund it, is Idolatrie.
• * 1.172

  They must shew where Christ com∣maunded him selfe to be worshipped by an Image.
• * 1.173

  And so you doe, as shal appeare by the confession of your fel∣lowes.
• * 1.174

  Tortalicium sidei contra Iudae••s, Sarace∣nos &c. lib. 3. Considerat. 4. argumen••. 24.

  Diuine ho∣nor giuen to Images by the Church of Rome.
• * 1.175

  Fortalicium fidei Ibidem. Iacob. Nanctan. in 1. cap. ad Roma.
• * 1.176

  They giue Christs honor to an Image, and then they say they doe it in respect of Christ.
• * 1.177

  The Papists thinke to shift off the art of Idolatrie with a logicall re∣spect.
• * 1.178

  Esa. 42. God respe∣cteth the act if it bee against his law, and not the intētion.
• * 1.179

  Mat. 25. Christ wil haue charitie shew∣ed to others for his sake, but not diuine honour to any creature or Image.
• * 1.180

  Whether ci∣uil reuerence may be giuen to Images, cā be no questiō of religion.
• * 1.181

  Yeas, but you honour not him when you honour an Image.
• * 1.182

  Christ hath appointed vs be••ter meanes than an I∣mage to remé¦ber his death, & those the papists despise & preferre their owne deuises before them.
• * 1.183

  If they bee not dange∣••••us & withall superfluous.
• * 1.184

  Rom. 1.
• * 1.185

  Neither Christ nor his Apostles de∣liuered or al∣lowed Ima∣ges.
• * 1.186

  Libell. Athan. de passion. Ima∣ginis Christi.
• * 1.187

  Nicen. Synod. 2. act. ••.4.
• * 1.188

  Sig••ber••. in anno 765.
• * 1.189

  Fortali••ium fidei, lib. 3. con∣sid. 10. mirab. 5.
• * 1.190

  Vincent▪ specu∣li histor. lib. 24. cap. 160.
• * 1.191

  In deed they doe; & there∣fore looke to your 2. Nicene Councell what grosse forgeries are in it.
• * 1.192

  The Apostles & the Church succeeding for 400. yeres had no images & al that was suffered in the Church for 600. yeres, was the pain∣ting of stories.
• * 1.193

  The Gentils obi••cted this to the first Christi••ns that they had no Images. Arnob. aduers. gentes lib. 8. Origen. contra Celsum lib. 7.
• * 1.194

  What the Christians answered. Clemens Ale∣xand••. orati•• exhortatoria ad gentes.
• * 1.195

  Ibidem.
• * 1.196

  Orige••s ••••t••a Celsum lib. 7.
• * 1.197

  Ibidem.
• * 1.198

  Arnob. contra gentes. lib. 8. Lib. 2. cap. 19.
• * 1.199

  The woman that was cu∣red of the bloodie flixe by Christ ere∣cted an Image vnto him as vnto her be∣nefactour, her selfe being an heathen. Euseb. lib. 7. cap. 18.
• * 1.200

  Sozomen. lib. 5. cap. 21.
• * 1.201

  Iulian ouer∣threw this image in dete∣station of Christ his person and doctrine.
• * 1.202

  Eusebius iudg••ment of the womans making this Image.
• * 1.203

  Euseb. lib. 7. cap. 18. This setting vp of an image vnto Christ is counted by Eusebius an heathenish custome.
• * 1.204

  Images reie∣cted in Spaine Concil. Eliber. canon. 36.
• * 1.205

  August. de con∣sent. Euangelist, lib. 1. cap. 20. Images reiect∣ed in Africa.
• * 1.206

  Epiph. in epist. ad Iohan. Hiero∣solymitan. Images ere∣cted as con∣trarie to the Scriptures.
• * 1.207

  Gregorie disli∣ked not pain∣ting of stories in the church, but he condē∣ned adoratiō of Images.
• * 1.208

  Greg. lib. 9. epi. 9
• * 1.209

  Exod. 20.
• * 1.210

  Submission of knees, hands & eyes are parts of gods honor.
• a 1.211

  Esa. 45.
• b 1.212

  Ephes. 3.
• c 1.213

  Psal. 63.
• d 1.214

  1. Tim. 2.
• e 1.215

  Psal. 123.
• f 1.216

  Psal. 25.
• g 1.217

  Iohn 17.
• * 1.218

  Magistrates & Parents haue pa••t of Gods externall ho∣nor, because they present his person in iudging and blessing.

  God hath pro∣hibited that Images should haue any part of his corpo∣rall honor.
• * 1.219

  We must not bowe but to that which is better than our selues.
• * 1.220

  Habetur Nicen. Synod. 2. act. 7. What cūning was vsed in the 2. Nicene Councel to haue Images adored.
• * 1.221

  Tharasius Ibidem.
• * 1.222

  Nicen Synod. 2. act. 7. epist. Tharas. & toti∣us Synodi ad Constant. & Irenem.
• * 1.223

  A mā by this shift may ad∣ore his horse, and be no Ido∣later.
• * 1.224

  Genes. 33.
• * 1.225

  Genes. 23.
• * 1.226

  1. Reg. 20.
• * 1.227

  Luke. 14.
• * 1.228

  Were not these bishops well occupied to make this conclusion?
• * 1.229

  A right Stra∣tagem of Sa∣tan first to bring in ado∣ratiō of Ima∣ges with an ambiguitie of wordes, then to set the peo∣ple to adore them in plain deeds.
• * 1.230

  Nicenae Synodi 2. act. 7. epist. Tharasij & ••o••ius Concilij.
• * 1.231

  Ibidem.
• * 1.232

  Ibidem.
• * 1.233

  Ibidem.
• * 1.234

  Ibidem.
• * 1.235

  To kisse was a signe of fa∣uor and loue: to bowe a signe of subiection. The popish Doctrine tou∣ching Images agreeth not with the Councell which they would seeme to followe.
• * 1.236

  Two sensible chaunges in the adoration of Images.
• * 1.237

  Christes Crosse, that is his death must be ado∣red, but not the wood on which he hung.
• * 1.238

  Ambros. de obi∣tu Theodosij. Arnob. advers∣gentes, lib. 8.
• * 1.239

  You reiect the bookes that were in your own keeping, and will haue vs receiue what you list at your hands though it bee neuer so false.
• * 1.240

  It can be no point of faith that may not be proued by the scriptures.
• * 1.241

  They may soone be Ca∣tholike if they forge as fast as they haue doone, & then measure Ca∣tholicisme by those forge∣ries.
• * 1.242

  The Rhemish Testament v∣pon the 2. Thes. 2.
• * 1.243

  How largely the word Tra∣dition is takē amongest the fathers.
• * 1.244

  The Rhemish Test. fol. 559.
• * 1.245

  This is their maner of alea∣ging fathers throughout their Rhemish Testament.
• a 1.246

  Athanas. con∣tra gentes.
• b 1.247

  Chrysost. homil. 1. ad Titum.
• c 1.248

  Idem opera im∣perfect in Mat. homil. 41.
• d 1.249

  Cyril. in Leuit. lib. 5.
• e 1.250

  Ambros. Hexa∣mer. lib. 1. ca. 6.
• f 1.251

  August in Ioan. tract. 44.
• g 1.252

  Vincent, aduers haeret.
• h 1.253

  Ibidem.
• * 1.254

  Al that the Iesuites can inferre out of these fathers is this, that their own tra∣ditions be not necessarie to saluation.
• * 1.255

  Tradition is good if it con∣sent with the scriptures.
• * 1.256

  The Iesuites doctrine de∣pendeth on tradition of their owne making.
• * 1.257

  The Rhemish Testament. 2. Thes. 2.
• * 1.258

  The Rhemish Test. Ibidem.
• * 1.259

  The Rhemish Test. Ibidem.
• * 1.260

  S. Augustine refuteth re∣baptization by Scripture. ••Aug. epi. 203.
• * 1.261

  Aug. epi. 166.
• * 1.262

  Contra Crescon. lib. 2. cap. 31.
• * 1.263

  Contra Crescon. lib. 2. cap. 32. Augustine re∣fused Cyp••. authoritie as dissident frō the Scrip∣tures.
• * 1.264

  Aug. de Genes. ad literam, lib. 10. cap. 23. Al the shew the Ies. haue for this mat∣ter is one, t, too much in S. Austen.
• * 1.265

  Esset for Esse.
• * 1.266

  Aug. de Genes. ad literam, lib. 10. cap. 23.
• * 1.267

  There is no Gradation in these wordes except you read Esse which Sainct August••ment to make.
• a 1.268

  De Bapt. cōtrae Don••t. li. 4. cap. 24. The very same phrase in the very same matter is here vsed
• a 1.269

  De Bapt. cōtra Donat. lib. 2. cap. 7.
• * 1.270

  If the Iesuites read Esset, it is both a∣gainst them∣selues & also against S. Austen.

  The Iesuites tradition, be not all Apo∣stolicall.
• c 1.271

  August. epist. 118.
• d 1.272

  August. epist. 86.
• * 1.273

  Esset, maketh S. Augustine contrarie to himselfe.
• * 1.274

  This place maketh least of all against vs.

  A tradition may be writ∣ten.
• * 1.275

  1. Cor. 11.
• * 1.276

  1. Cor. 15.
• * 1.277

  2. Thes. 2.
• * 1.278

  Cyp. ad Pompei∣••••m contra epist. Stephani.
• * 1.279

  Basil. contra E••nomium. li. 3.
• * 1.280

  August. de Bap. contra Donat. lib. 5. cap. 23.
• * 1.281

  The custome of the church in baptizing her infants were not suffi∣cient if the tradition were not Aposto∣like.
• * 1.282

  S. Augustine proueth it needfull for infants to be baptized: whether it were lawfull was neuer doubted in his time.
• * 1.283

  August. de bap∣tism. contra D••∣n••t. li. 4. ca. 24.
• * 1.284

  S Augustine vrgeth Bap∣tisme to be needfull a∣gainst the Pe∣lagians, who thought it superfluous, not against those that were preuen∣ted with ine∣uitable ne∣cessitie.
• * 1.285

  Iohn 3.

  The fact is not expressed in the Scrip∣tures, the cause is.
• a 1.286

  Mat. 18.
• b 1.287

  Mat. 19.
• c 1.288

  Iohn 3.
• d 1.289

  1. Cor. 7.
• e 1.290

  1. Cor. 1. 2. Tim. 1.
• f 1.291

  1. Peter 2.
• g 1.292

  Rom. 11.

  If Children be holy be∣cause their parents are holie, then they haue no better holi∣nes than their parents: and in all Christiā parents there is not inward sanctification.
• h 1.293

  Act. 8.
• i 1.294

  Rom. 5. vers. 15.17.21.
• * 1.295

  August. de bap∣tis. lib. 4 cap.
• a 1.296

  22.
• b 1.297

  23.
• c 1.298

  24.
• * 1.299

  The scripture proueth that Childrē may be baptized & must be, if we wil haue them to be sa∣ued, tradition proueth they were Bapti∣zed.
• * 1.300

  One and the same traditiō both vnwrittē and yet war∣ranted by the Scriptures.
• * 1.301

  De baptis. cōtra Donat. li. 2. c. 7.
• * 1.302

  De baptis. cōtra D••nat. li. 5. ••. 23.
• * 1.303

  De baptis. li. 1. cap. 7.

  Rebaptizatiō against the Scriptures.
• * 1.304

  De baptis. lib. 4. cap. 7.
• * 1.305

  De baptis. lib. 5. cap. 4.
• * 1.306

  De baptis. lib. 6. cap. 1.
• * 1.307

  How the same thing may be written & yet vnwritten.
• * 1.308

  The Rhemish Testament 2. Thes. 2.
• * 1.309

  That Mary was not know∣en of her hus∣band after the birth of our Sauiour is a reuerēd truth but no point of faith.

  De Eccl. dogma∣tibus cap. 69.
• * 1.310

  Vide Erasmi censuram in eundem librum.
• * 1.311

  Cap. 4. Ibidem, cap. 69.
• * 1.312

  Enchirid. ad Laurens. ca. 34.
• * 1.313

  Christes mo∣ther was a Virgine as wel after his birth as after his conception.
• * 1.314

  De Tempore sermo. 123.

  How she for∣bare the com∣pany of her husband is no matter incō∣prehensible.

  Ibidem sermo. 10.15.17.18.25.
• * 1.315

  If you list to conclude, and so remained to her death, you may for vs; but that is no point of faith, whatso∣euer the for∣mer be.
• * 1.316

  Hieron. aduers. Heluidium.
• * 1.317

  August. de S. Virginit. cap 4.
• * 1.318

  The Papists would haue the holy ghost holde his diuini••ie by tradition.
• * 1.319

  Harding against the Apologie of the English Church, part. 2. cap. 1.
• * 1.320

  Athanas. de communi essen∣tia Patris, Filij. & S••iritus sancti. Dydi∣mus de spiritu sancto. Basil. contra Eunomium & de spiritu sancto. Nazianzen. orat. 5. de Theolog. Ambros. de spiritu sancto. Cyril. de Trini∣tate, lib. 7. & lib. de spiritu sancto. August. de Trinitate.
• * 1.321

  The fathers assured them∣selues they had expresse Scripture for the godhead of the holy Ghost.
• a 1.322

  August. epist. 66.
• b 1.323

  Idem. qu. est. supra Exod. lib. 2. quaest. 59.
• c 1.324

  Contra Max. lib. 3. cap. 21.
• * 1.325

  What is Di∣lucide, but plain Scrip∣ture?
• * 1.326

  Ambros. de Spiritus Sancto, lib. 3. cap. 10.
• * 1.327

  Ibidem lib. 3. cap. 11.

  Is not euidēter euident Scrip∣ture?
• * 1.328

  Nazian. de Theolog. orat. 5.
• * 1.329

  The spirite openly pro∣fessed in the Scriptures to be God, and expresly so recorded.
• * 1.330

  De fide ad Petrum, cap. 11.
• * 1.331

  Is this no Scripture?
• * 1.332

  Idem de Trinit. lib. 15. cap. 26.
• * 1.333

  Idem de Trinit. lib. 15. cap. 27.
• * 1.334

  This reason may suffice any Christian man.
• a 1.335

  Hierom. in epist. ad Gal. cap. 1.
• * 1.336

  The sense and consequents are scriptures as well as the wordes.
• b 1.337

  Athanas. in tract. quòd Ni∣cen. Synod. con∣gruis & pijs verbis vsa sit.
• c 1.338

  Ibidem.
• * 1.339

  Hilar. ad Con∣stant.
• * 1.340

  Hierom aduer. Luciferianos.
• f 1.341

  Ibi••em.
• g 1.342

  Reuel••t. 1.
• * 1.343

  See Esa. 11. & 2. Thes. 2. Reuelat. 1. & 19.

  The spirit proceedeth from the sonne.
• * 1.344

  The Iesuites can shewe no poynt of fayth th••t the fathers beleeued without scrip∣ture.
• * 1.345

  Tertul. de prae∣scrips. aduers. haeret.
• * 1.346

  In vaine to conuince them by the scriptures, which receiue not the scri∣ptures.
• * 1.347

  Tertull. de prae∣scriptic. aduers. haereticos. Tertullian speaketh of those sects which were in his time, as Valenti∣nus, Martion and others, who either denied the scriptures or turned them all to monste∣rous alegories
• * 1.348

  Iren. ••ib. 3. ••ap. 2.
• * 1.349

  Of these men spake Tertullian.
• * 1.350

  The reasons of Tertullians speach.
• * 1.351

  Tertull. de praescriptio. aduers. Haere∣tices.
• * 1.352

  Ibidem.
• * 1.353

  Basill. de spiritu sanct. cap. 27. Basils place for traditi∣ons exami∣ned.
• * 1.354

  This verie place graun∣teth things necessarie to saluation to be in the Gospell. Ibidem, cap. 29
• * 1.355

  Many things receiued with out scriptures but no mat∣ters of faith. The booke shamefully corrupted.

  Erasmus cen∣sure vpon this booke.

  Epist. Erasm. dedicatoria ad episc. Culmens. praefixa. cap. 17.

  Erasm. cal∣leth them Patches and dregges.

  This place of all others crieth cor∣ruption. Basill. de spiritu sanct. cap. 27.
• * 1.356

  Marke the co∣herēce of this place.
• * 1.357

  Ibidem, cap. 27.
• * 1.358

  A verie lear∣ned and wit∣tie discourse forsooth.
• * 1.359

  cap. 29.
• * 1.360

  Basil. de spiritu. sanct••, cap. 29. This place maketh Basill aliue some ages after hee was dead.
• a 1.361

  Socrat. lib. 4. cap. 26.
• b 1.362

  Basilij epist. 56 57.58.89.
• c 1.363

  Socrat. lib. 5. cap. 8.
• * 1.364

  This place, if it were Ba∣sils, doth the Iesuits no good.
• * 1.365

  Their forged Basill spea∣keth of the ceremonies not of Do∣ctrine.

  I hope these traditions bee no points of fayth.
• * 1.366

  Basil. de spirit. santi. cap. 27. Ibidem.
• * 1.367

  This ergo was no Doctrine nor point of fayth, which must be open to all the peo∣ple.
• * 1.368

  Ibidem, cap. 27.
• * 1.369

  And prayers of the Church and the creed haue force to godlines: which are here recko∣ned amongst traditions.
• * 1.370

  The papists when they wāt Scripture to proue any poynt of their Doctrine, runne by and by to tradi∣tion: and tra∣dition they proue by cer∣tayne forge∣ries of their owne.

  Our fayth must depend on no mans word, but only on gods.
• * 1.371

  Yf they could not boudly call thēselues Catholiks, they could do ••••le.
• * 1.372

  Their adora∣tion of Ima∣ges neuer taught in the Church, but by themselues
• * 1.373

  Epist. Tha∣rasij & Concilij ad Cōstantinum act. 7.
• * 1.374

  Eiusdem Con∣cilij, act. 3. Constantinus Constant. Episc.

  Ionas Aurelia∣nens. episc. de eultu Imagi∣num, lib. 1.

  Adoration of Images open∣ly detested in the west Church by such as tooke vpon them the defence of Images.
• * 1.375

  Ibidem.
• * 1.376

  Inf••rmo & egeno simula∣chro.
• * 1.377

  See leratissimo mancipantio error••.
• * 1.378

  Ibidem.
• * 1.379

  This was af∣ter your Ni∣cene Councel 50. yeres.

  The schoole∣men kept the words of the 2. Nicene councell and refelled their meaning with a farre wickeder re∣solution then the former.
• * 1.380

  Thomas part. 3. quaest. 25. ari. 3▪
• * 1.381

  Here the Di∣uell shewed himselfe in his likenesse.
• * 1.382

  Bonauen. in. 3. lib. senten. dist. 9. quaest. 2.
• * 1.383

  Holcot. in lib. Sapientiae lect. 58.
• * 1.384

  Gerson. de pro∣batione spirit. parte operum 1
• * 1.385

  They say they make not Images their goddes: but to whatsoe∣uer they giue diuine honor, that they make their God.

  To giue Christs honor to an Image in respect of the O∣riginall is a seelie shift.
• * 1.386

  To adore the Image in re∣spect of the Originall, is in summe the very same an∣swere that al the Pagans gaue when they were re∣proued for their Idola∣trie.
• * 1.387

  Adoration of Images neuer hard of in the church before the 2. Nicen Councell, which was 790. yeres af∣ter Christ.
• * 1.388

  Painting of stories in the Church is a matter som∣what ancient, but yet not ca¦tholike.
• * 1.389

  These fathers were Catho∣like, & yet re∣pelled pain∣ting in Chur∣ches.

  Nicenae Synodi 2. actio 6.

  The 2. Coun∣cell of Nice deluded the fathers that were alleaged against them. Epiphanius pretended, to be forged, but without all cause.

  Ibidem.
• * 1.390

  Eusebius con∣demned by them for an heretike, but falsely.
• * 1.391

  Nicenae Synodi 2. act. 6.
• * 1.392

  Ibidem.
• * 1.393

  Ibidem.

  Chrysost. Am∣philochius & Asterius plain∣ly shifted off by the Coun∣cel of Nice. Contra Celsum, lib. 7.
• * 1.394

  Bowing to Images con∣demned.
• * 1.395

  August. de vera Religio. cap. 55.
• * 1.396

  Hieron. in 6. cap. Daniel.
• * 1.397

  Gerson. in compendio Theolog. de 10. praeceptis.

  Some of their owne church haue con∣demned bow∣ing to Images as contrarie to the lawe of God.
• * 1.398

  Saint August. abused to make for Images.
• * 1.399

  August. de doctrin. Christ. lib. 3. cap. 9.
• * 1.400

  Things ordai∣ned by God must haue their reue∣rence though they be but creatures, marie adora∣tion they must not haue.
• * 1.401

  August. lib. eodem, cap. 9. de doctina. chri∣stian. lib. 3. c. 5.
• * 1.402

  cap. 8.
• * 1.403

  Images vn∣profitable signes and not ordeined of God.
• * 1.404

  cap. 7.
• * 1.405

  cap. 8.
• * 1.406

  The lawe of god condem∣neth bowing vnto Images, which pre∣cept the Church must obey without all shifts or other respects
• * 1.407

  Praying in a straunge tongue.
• * 1.408

  Custome without truth is the rotten∣nes of errour.
• * 1.409

  Cypr. ad Pom∣pei. contra epist•• Stephan.
• * 1.410

  Tertull. de virgin. veland.
• * 1.411

  Ex sentent. Concil. Car∣thag. inter ••p••••a Cyprian.
• * 1.412

  August. debap. contra Donat. lib. 3. cap. 6.
• * 1.413

  Iohn. 14. Ephes. 1.
• * 1.414

  The Rhemish Test. vpon the 1. Cor. 14.
• * 1.415

  1. Cor. 14.

  The place of S. Paul to the Corinthians against pray∣ing in a strange tongue.
• * 1.416

  The Iesuites labour toothe and nayle to shift off this place.
• * 1.417

  This is the summe of all their decla∣ration vpon the 1. Cor. 14. in their Re∣mish Testa∣ment.
• * 1.418

  The two ver∣tues of their Rhemish an∣notations.
• * 1.419

  The two ver∣tues of their Rhemish an∣notations.
• * 1.420

  The words strange or vnknowne put into the text in an o∣ther print for the opening of Sainct. Pauls minde.
• * 1.421

  Sainct Paules words are most absurd, if they be vn∣derstood of knowne toungs••
• * 1.422

  The text can∣not stand, ex∣cept you adde the worde (vnknowne) to it.
• * 1.423

  Sainct Paul so expoun∣deth him∣self.
• * 1.424

  Vers. 9.
• * 1.425

  11.
• * 1.426

  16.
• * 1.427

  An other tongue is a strange toung which is all one with an vnknowne tongue.

  Chrysost. in 1. Corinth. 14.
• * 1.428

  The fathers interpreting Sainct Paul, adde those wordes which we doe.
• * 1.429

  Ibidem.
• * 1.430

  Ibidem Ambros. in 1. Corinth. 14.
• * 1.431

  Ibidem.
• * 1.432

  Ibidem.
• * 1.433

  Ibidem. Haymo in 1. Cor. 14.
• * 1.434

  Ibidem. August. de Genes. ad li∣teram, lib. 12. cap. 8.
• * 1.435

  Mark what a tongue is by Saint Austens interpreta∣tion.
• * 1.436

  The Rhemish Test. 1. Corinth 14.
• * 1.437

  He that knoweth not the sense is not edified, but he that knoweth not one worde, as in a strange tongue is a thousand tymes l••sse edified.
• * 1.438

  Speake to children in a strange tongue, and they will ei∣ther fly from you for feare or laugh you to skorne.
• * 1.439

  Hebrew doth edify no more than Irish if a man vnder∣stand neither.
• * 1.440

  De Gen. ad lit••. lib. 12. cap. 8.
• * 1.441

  Chrysost. in 1. Cor. 14.
• * 1.442

  Ambros. in. 1. Cor. 14.
• * 1.443

  Nothing doth edifie except it bee vnder∣stood.
• * 1.444

  The Rhemish Testament, 1. Corinth. 14.
• * 1.445

  A wretched cauill of the Iesuits be∣cause the peo∣ple vnder∣stand not euerie myste∣rie of the Psalm•••• or lessons, to say they were as good not vnder∣stād a word.
• * 1.446

  2. Peter 3.
• * 1.447

  If the Psalmes and lessons do not edifie, the worde of god doth not edi∣fie.
• * 1.448

  Rom. 15.
• * 1.449

  2 Timoth. 3.

  The rest of our prayers are so plaine that no man can pretend lack of vnder∣standing them except he be a natu∣rall.
• * 1.450

  They be mad Christians and of your making, that vnderstand not these things.
• * 1.451

  This is a wise iest of the Ie∣suits because the people vnderstande
• * 1.452

  Compare this simili∣tude with the Iesuits obie∣ction, and tell me what they differ.
• * 1.453

  Yf seruice in •• known toung do not ••difie, what doth ser∣uice in an vn∣knowne?
• * 1.454

  The Iesuits waie to edifie is to let the people not vnderstand a word of their praiers.
• * 1.455

  Euerie toung barbarous to him that vn∣derstandeth it not.
• * 1.456

  1 Corinth. 14.

  The Rhemish Testament

  1 Corinth. 14. Act. 2.
• * 1.457

  The Rhemish Testament

  1. Corinth. 14.
• * 1.458

  Barbarous, that is, which is not vnder∣stood, what tongue so∣euer it be.
• * 1.459

  1. Cor. 14.
• * 1.460

  Hieron. in
• * 1.461

  1. Cor. 14.
• * 1.462

  Chrysost. in 1. cor. 14. hom. 35.
• * 1.463

  Ibidem.
• * 1.464

  The Rhemish Testament 1. Corinth. 14.
• * 1.465

  Hebrew, Greeke, and Latine, were not vnder∣stoode of the ciuil people in euery great Citie.
• * 1.466

  The Gretians accounteth the Latine tongue to be barbarous in respect of then own.

  Plautus in prolog. Asina∣riae.

  Strabo Geogra∣phiae lib. 1. Rom. 1.
• * 1.467

  We despise not these tongues as barbarous in themselues; but shew what Saint Paul meaneth by this word.
• * 1.468

  Tristium lib. 5. elegia. 11.
• * 1.469

  And you shall neuer proue he spake not of them; in the meane time the Apostles words he in∣differētly for all tongues.
• * 1.470

  In the world) and none of them be ge∣nerall spea∣ches exten∣ding to all the toungs that are.
• * 1.471

  Chrysost. in 1. Corinth. 14.
• * 1.472

  In all toungs he that is not vnderstood, is barbarous to the hearer.
• * 1.473

  Chrysost. Ibidem
• * 1.474

  Chrysostom exemplifieth Sainct Paules woords twise together by the latine tongue.
• * 1.475

  Though wee praie in latine or what toung whatsoeuer.
• * 1.476

  Ambros. in 1. Corinth. 14.
• * 1.477

  Ibidem.
• * 1.478

  By Saint Am∣brose iudge∣ment, the Apostles spake princi∣pally of those that vsed the hebrew toung in their Ser∣mons and praiers, when the people vnderstood ••hem not.
• * 1.479

  Haymo. in 1. Corinth. 14. Haymo. Ibidem
• * 1.480

  The Rhemish Testament, 1. Corinth. 14.
• * 1.481

  That he spea∣keth not of Church ser∣uice, is pro∣ued by inui••∣cible argu∣ments.
• * 1.482

  Sainct Paule by preaching doth not ex∣clude praying but seuerally mentioneth them both.
• * 1.483

  The Church in her diuine seruice must haue both preaching and praying.

  Roma. 10
• * 1.484

  The worde engendreth faith, and faith produ∣ceth praier.

  Act 2.
• * 1.485

  These three were the pub∣like exercises of Christes Church vn∣der the Apo∣stles.
• * 1.486

  If the Church seruice con∣sisted of these three, then were they all three parts of the church seruice.
• * 1.487

  The Church in the Apo∣stles time had no set order of publike praier as the Iesuites dreame.
• * 1.488

  In the prima∣tiue Church the pastours and ministers praied and gaue thanks at the spirit directed their hearts & lips.
• * 1.489

  God regar∣deth not these solem∣nities of the Iesuits which they suppose to be the highest points of godlines.
• * 1.490

  All things were doone in the first Church by the miracu∣lous working of the holy Ghost.
• * 1.491

  1. Corinth. 12.

  The gifts of gods spirit at the first erection of the Church.
• * 1.492

  1. Corinth. 14.
• * 1.493

  With the spi∣rit] is with the miraculous gift of the spirit.

  The presence and consent of the people maketh the praier pub∣like.
• * 1.494

  Howe shall the simple man say A∣men, that is, any simple man?
• * 1.495

  1. Corinth. 14. Rom. 4.
• * 1.496

  Deutero. 27.
• * 1.497

  Galat. 3. Chrysost. in 1. Corinth. 14.

  By the com∣mon or vul∣gare person Sainct Paule meaneth the people.
• * 1.498

  The forme of the Lords institution was certaine, but the prai∣ers made and thanks giuen at the Lords table, were left to the discretion of the minister.
• * 1.499

  Masse forged in the Apo∣stles names. Iacobi Missa.

  Iacobi Missa.
• * 1.500

  Constitut. Apost. lib. 8.

  a cap. 15. ad cap. 24.
• * 1.501

  vide Constitut. Apost. lib. 6. cap. 14.

  lib. 8. cap. 15
• * 1.502

  Clemens booke of Apostolike constitutions neuer recei∣ued in the Church.
• * 1.503

  Grego. lib. 7. epi. 63.
• * 1.504

  Polidor. de in∣uent. rerum lib. 5. cap. 10.
• * 1.505

  Polidor. de in∣uent. rerum lib. 5. cap. 10.
• * 1.506

  Gregorij re∣sponsio ad 3. interrogat. Au∣gustini.
• * 1.507

  Gregor. lib. 7. epist. 63.
• * 1.508

  No praiers vsed by the Apostles at the Lords table but only the Lords praier.
• * 1.509

  In 1. Cor. 14. Tertul. in apologet.
• * 1.510

  To pray by hart dured a while a∣mongst the Christians.
• * 1.511

  The Iesuits will haue the ordering of S. Pauls words whether he will or no.
• * 1.512

  If Sainct Paule in this place did not speake of the Church ser∣uice, howe can the Iesu∣ites proue the Corinthi∣ans had their seruice at this tyme in Greeke?
• * 1.513

  The Iesuites thwarted with their owne princi∣ples.
• * 1.514

  Except they take hold of Sainct Paules reasons here vsed in this chapter, they shall neuer proue the seruice at Co∣rinth in Saint Paules time was in Greeke.

  It is true they had their ser∣uice in greek, but the ••esuits cannot proue it but by ouer∣throwing their owne conclusion which they woulde infer: and so their an••cedent choketh their consequent.
• * 1.515

  Their antece∣dent being granted their cōsequēt doth not followe.

  A wise reason, because Saint Paul had set an order to haue their seruice in the tongue which they knewe, there∣fore some might not inuert that order.
• * 1.516

  This disorder might come either by straungers, or by such as were fastned to their cures.
• * 1.517

  Yet was it some cunning to set a good face on the matter.
• * 1.518

  The Rhemish Testament, 1. Corinth. 14.

  Neither ante∣cedent nor consequent true.
• * 1.519

  Ambros. in 1. Corinth. 14.
• * 1.520

  The Rhemish Testament, 1. Corinth. 14.
• * 1.521

  And why might not euerie pastour and minister haue his Psalmes, his thankes gi∣uing as wel in praying as in preaching?
• * 1.522

  The Rhemish Testament, 1. Corinth. 14. Why maie not doctrine, praier, and the Lordes supper follow ech other in one continual action though they be things different in themselues?
• * 1.523

  Cor. 14. All must be done to edifi∣cation, e••go Church ser∣uice.
• * 1.524

  The Rhemish Testament 1 Corinth. 14.
• * 1.525

  Sainct Paule in this chap∣ter speaketh both of the sermons where Infidels might be, and of the praiers and blessings where they might not be.
• * 1.526

  The Iesuits inuincible arguments are grounded vpon nothing but their own false surmises.
• * 1.527

  The loosnes of their last argument.
• * 1.528

  One part of the churches exercise doth not exclude but rather employ the other.

  Church praier is Church ser∣uice; and that Saint Paul speaketh of. Saint Paul speaketh of al the words that were to be vsed in the Church, either at the Lords table or otherwise, but not of the actions be∣cause they are not per∣formed with the tongue. Diuine ser∣uice is p••o∣perly that which is done with the mouth, and not h••nds or gestures.
• * 1.529

  Wordes in the Lords supper as essential as elements; or actions, and those the people must vnderstand.

  Al things must come to edification and therfore Church seruice.
• * 1.530

  The Rhemish T••st. ••. Cor. 14. O miserable vnderstan∣ding.
• * 1.531

  The Iesuites as men in a maze defend sometimes that the peo∣ple neede not vnderstand their praiers: sometimes that they doe vnderstand them though they can nei∣ther spel nor speake one word of La∣tine.
• * 1.532

  1. Cor. 14. Nothing so absurd which the Iesuites will not de∣fend.
• * 1.533

  A new kinde of Grammar for the simple to vnderstand the latin toūg in one halfe houre.
• * 1.534

  This is per∣fect ware.
• * 1.535

  A noble kind of vnderstan∣ding how vn∣wise was Sainct Paule not to foresee this method to edifie with all.

  Is this all the vnderstan∣ding that priest or clark for the most part had?

  1. Corinth. 14.
• * 1.536

  1. Corinth. 14. Amen to the saunceb••l, is euen as good as to that they vn∣derstand not.
• * 1.537

  The heart must vnder∣stand and consent be∣fore the lips saie Amen
• * 1.538

  A position of the Iesuits which I think the Turk•• thē selues would be ashamed to defend.
• * 1.539

  The heart doth not pray without vn∣derstanding 1. Cor. 14. Ephes. 5.
• * 1.540

  Aug. in Psal. 99.
• * 1.541

  To great purpose the Iesuits say.
• * 1.542

  Aug. in Psal. 18. exposis. 1.
• * 1.543

  And there∣fore dutie. The Iesuits praier is like the chatte∣••ing of bird•• in S Austen•• iudgement.
• * 1.544

  Chryso••t. in 1. Corinth. 14
• * 1.545

  Is that neces∣sarie or no?
• * 1.546

  Ambros. in 1. Corinth. 14.
• * 1.547

  Ought and must do not set vs at li∣bertie.
• * 1.548

  Cassiodor. in Psal. 46.
• * 1.549

  Concil. Aquis∣granens sub Ludouico pio cap. 123.
• * 1.550

  Ibide, ca. 133.
• * 1.551

  If they ought thē had they need so to doe.
• * 1.552

  The Rhemish Testament 1 Corinth. 14.
• * 1.553

  The Iesuits ouerthrow their own po∣sitions.
• * 1.554

  The people barred by the Iesuits from that they know, & from the means to 〈…〉〈…〉.
• * 1.555

  Were they not better let the fault be in others and not in themselues as now it is?
• * 1.556

  The Rhemish Testament 1. Corinth. 14. How doe our mouths offer our hearts to God when we vnderstand not what we say?
• * 1.557

  Praiers are very needful instructions especially for the simple that cannot direct them∣selues in ma∣king their prai¦ers to God.
• * 1.558

  Rom. 15. Do not the Fathers often draw their ar∣guments to perswade the people from the very prai∣ers of the Church? See S. Aug. ad Bo∣nifac. li. 4. ca. 9.

  They be no prayers when the tongue speaketh with out the hart and the voice of the hart is vnderstan∣ding.
• * 1.559

  Mat. 25. Mark. 7.
• * 1.560

  Psal. 31.
• * 1.561

  Aug. in Psal. 18. Where vnder∣standing wan∣teth mā diffe∣reth not from a beast.
• * 1.562

  The Rhemish Testament, 1. Corinth. 14.

  It skilleth not in what toung the seruice of the Church was, so the people vnder∣stood it.

  The Rhemish Test. 1. Cor. 14. Gregor. moral. lib. 27. cap. 6.
• * 1.563

  Eleuē fathers abused by the Iesuits at one clappe.
• * 1.564

  Nine of those fathers speake of such coun∣tri••s as vnder¦stoode the latine tongue and the other two speake not one word of the latine seruice.
• * 1.565

  The latine tōgue was vn∣derstood in Africa where Cyprian and Augustine preached.
• * 1.566

  August. cofess. lib. 1. cap. 14.
• * 1.567

  Aug. Retract. lib. 1. cap. 20. The rudest among the people in Africa vnder∣stood the La∣tine tongue.
• * 1.568

  August. de verbis Apost. sermo. 26.
• * 1.569

  The Iesuits heap vp fa∣thers in their Rhemish Testament to no purpose but only to amaze the simple.
• * 1.570

  Linguae meae hominibus.
• * 1.571

  None of these Fathers which they alleage speak of all the west Countries or Churches.
• * 1.572

  Greg. moral. in Iob lib. 27. cap. 6.
• * 1.573

  Hieron. to. 1. epist. 58.
• * 1.574

  Alleluia is no proofe for the Latin seruice. Alleluia is a better argu∣ment for the Hebrew than for the La∣tine seruice.
• * 1.575

  Epist. 178.
• * 1.576

  August. epist. 178. The Barbari∣ans in their tongues vsed Alleluia, as wel as the Romanes or Grecians.
• * 1.577

  Why these two words were not trāslated into any tongue. See Hieron. Ma••cel. epist. 137.
• * 1.578

  Alleluia vsed in this land by the Saxons that could no Latine. Grego. moral. in Iob lib. 27. cap. 8.
• * 1.579

  The Britans that could speake no La∣tine, sung the praises of god: in what toūg then if not in their own?
• * 1.580

  Hieron. tom. 1. epist. 58. Hierom mis∣constered by the Iesuites.
• * 1.581

  Hieron. in 1. Epist. 17 ad Marcel. Hierom spea∣keth of the plough men in Bethleem where Christ was borne.
• * 1.582

  It is easie to alleage nine skore fathers in any matter to no pur∣pose.
• * 1.583

  God grant it be but ig∣norance in the Iesuits to cite fathers in this sort.
• * 1.584

  The Rhemish Testament 1 Corinth. 14.
• * 1.585

  The Latine tongue was common not to all, but to such as could meditate the Scriptures in this Lande.
• * 1.586

  Beda. Histor. Angl. li. 1. ca. 1.
• * 1.587

  Meditation of Scriptures doth not sig∣nifie the prai∣ers of the Church.
• * 1.588

  If they sear∣ched the trueth with fiue tongues, then did they read or heare the scriptures in four toungs besides the Latine.
• * 1.589

  The Latine tongue was common to those that were learned in those foure Nations.

  Let them take Bede how they wil, he maketh nothing for their Latine seruice in the words which they bring. The Italian Monks, which vnderstood not the Saxō toung, might haue the La∣tine seruice in their Abbey, but that the people had it in their parish Churches cā∣not be proued by any place of Bede.
• * 1.590

  Hauing Saint Pauls Rule that the peo∣ple should vnderstand the praiers that are made in the church we neede not search in what tongue eche Nation had their seruic••.
• * 1.591

  These shifs of the Iesuits being refelled Saint Pauls text is clear for vs.
• * 1.592

  The seruice of the prima∣tiue Church manifestly confirmeth our constru∣ction of Saint Paul.
• * 1.593

  What order the Apostles tooke for Church ser∣uice, as the bookes which they most esteeme, doe testifie.

  Constit. Apost. lib. 8. cap. 16. The Church seruice diui∣ded between the bishop & the whole congregatiō.
• * 1.594

  Cap. 18.
• * 1.595

  Cap. 20. The people could not make these answers ex∣cept they vn∣derstood the tongue that the Bishop spake in.
• * 1.596

  The liturgies of Iames, Ba∣sil, and Chry∣sostome pre∣scribe like aunswers for the peo∣ple in the praiers of the Church.

  That which we alleadge out of these liturgies hath the true and vndoubted testimo••ies of the Fathers.
• * 1.597

  Chrysost. in 2. Cor. in h••m. 18.

  Marke the forme of pub∣like praier in Chrysostom•• time.
• * 1.598

  Can they haue plainer words?

  Basil. hexam. homil. 4.

  Men, weomē & children singing and praying in the Church seruice. Iustin. Martyr. Apol. pro Chri∣stianis. 2.
• * 1.599

  Can they haue plaine•• words?

  Basil. hexam. homil. 4.

  Men, weomē & children singing and praying in the Church seruice. Iustin. Martyr. Apol. pro Chri∣stianis. 2.
• * 1.600

  Ibidem.
• * 1.601

  Aug. in. Psal. 54.
• * 1.602

  Ambros. hex∣am. lib. 3. cap. 5.
• * 1.603

  Leo. sermo. 3. de ieiunio. 7. mensis The publike praier of the whole people more auailea∣ble with God than the prai∣er of the pries•• alone.
• * 1.604

  Tertul. in Apologet.
• * 1.605

  Quasi manu facta.

  Isidor. de eccle. officiis lib. 1. ca. 10. de lection.

  That al shuld•• pray & sing in the church is a dutie and therefore a necessitie.

  Legum Francie lib. 1. cap. 66.

  De eccles. diuer. capitulis Const. 123.
• * 1.606

  Lyra saith if the people vnderstād the priestes prai∣er & benedicti¦on they be b••t∣••er affected to god ward, and answere Amen with more deuotiō.
• * 1.607

  1 Corinth. 14▪

  Iustinian ap∣plieth S. pauls place to proue that the peo∣ple should bee edified & stir∣red by the priests words to cōfesse with their mouthes the praise of God in his church.
• * 1.608

  The p••iaers & speaches of their Masse booke at this day proue the people should vnderstand & answere the Priest in the chiefest parts of their Church ser∣uice.
• * 1.609

  He that spea∣keth to men that which they cannot vnderstand, mocketh and deludeth thē.

  August. de Doct. christia. li. 4. cap. 10.
• * 1.610

  1. Corin. 14.
• * 1.611

  Ordinarium Missae secūdum vsum Sarum.
• * 1.612

  Ideo precorvos fratres orate pro me.
• * 1.613

  Orate fratres & sorores pro me.
• * 1.614

  Dominus ne∣biscū. Oremus.
• * 1.615

  Ordinarium Missae secundi•• vsum Sarum.
• * 1.616

  Sursum corda habemus ad Dominum.
• * 1.617

  Et cum spiritu tuo.
• * 1.618

  Sac••rd. se ver∣••ens ad popu∣lum tacita vo∣ce dicat, Orate fratres & soro∣res prome.

  O mockerie to desire the people to pray for him: and yet so to speake it, that no man shal heare it.
• * 1.619

  The Papists haue turned edification into gesticu∣lation.

  It is the peo∣ple and not God that needeth the Priestes voice in the church praiers.
• * 1.620

  Psal. 27.
• * 1.621

  Aug. de magi∣••••ro. cap. 1.
• * 1.622

  Speach neces∣sary in respect of the people: which if they vnderstand not, silence would doe thē as much good.
• * 1.623

  If it be need∣ful for the Priest to speak in the Church ser∣uice, it is as needeful for the people to vnderstand what he saith.
• * 1.624

  The end of speaking is that others maie vnder∣stand: if ther∣••ore that want, the first is superfluous

  August. de ma∣gistro. cap. 1.
• * 1.625

  The Priest at his Masse vt∣tereth euerie word, as if the people did vn¦derstand him and ioyne with him in prayer.
• * 1.626

  Oremus. Gratias aga∣mus. Quaesumus. Offerimus. Laudamus. Benedicamus. Adoramus.
• * 1.627

  Al toungs are alike to God.
• * 1.628

  God no re∣specter of per¦sons, much lesse of toungs.
• * 1.629

  Pilates act is not so good a reason for the latine seruice; as Caiphas prophesie was for the Popes infal∣lible iudge∣ment: and yet either is verie foolish.
• * 1.630

  Origen. contra Celsum. lib. 8.
• * 1.631

  All tongues are fitte for praier.
• * 1.632

  The Rhemish Test. 1. Cor. 14.
• * 1.633

  The Rhemish Test. 1. Cor. 14.
• * 1.634

  S. Augustine rackt by the Iesuites from his right mea¦ning.
• * 1.635

  August. epist. 118. cap. 5.
• * 1.636

  The worde should be ho∣die.
• * 1.637

  It is madnes to breake the custome of the vniuersall Church in thinges in∣different.

  The Iesuites defend a new custome a∣gainst the auncient and generall or∣der of Christs Church: are they not mad by S. Augu∣stines rule?

  Lyra. in 1.

  Cor. 14.

  Iohan. Eckins in locis commu∣nibus.

  The south In∣diās euer had and yet haue their seruice in their mo∣ther tongue.
• * 1.638

  Sigismund. li∣ber in rerum Moscouit arum Commentariis, cap. de d••cimis. So haue the Moscouites and Armeni∣ans.
• * 1.639

  Petrus. Bello. de moribus Armeniorum.
• * 1.640

  All Africa, A∣sia, and the North parts of 〈…〉〈…〉 ••nd bar••arous tongues.
• * 1.641

  Aeneas Sylui∣us hi••••. ••ohem. cap. 13.

  God from heauen de∣cided that the Russians and Moraui∣ans should haue their ser∣uice in their natiue tongue though it were barba∣rous.
• * 1.642

  Concil. Latera∣nens. sub In∣nocent. 3. ca. 9.
• * 1.643

  in plerisque partibus. Populi diuer∣sar. linguarū.
• * 1.644

  Secundum di∣uersitates lin∣guarum.
• * 1.645

  Mo tongues vsed in the west Church than the La∣tine tongue.
• * 1.646

  The general vse of the primatiue Church con∣fi••meth the seruice in the English tongue.
• * 1.647

  All tongues allowed in the primatiue Church for men to make their publike prayers in.
• * 1.648

  The Iesuits are so Catho∣like that they haue not so much as one Father for the greatest points of their religion.
• * 1.649

  The walles of the Church were theirs, but not the faith of the Church.
• * 1.650

  Pilates autho∣ritie is all the holde the Ie∣suites haue for their latin seruice.
• * 1.651

  The praier is not publike except the people vnder∣stand it and confirme it.
• * 1.652

  Pilate wrate the superscri∣ption of the crosse not for al the persons in the worlde but for all the strangers that w••re at Ieru∣salem.
• * 1.653

  Al the worlde vnderstoode not the three learned tongues.
• * 1.654

  What needed the gift of mo tongues, and where was the diuision of tongues which God inflicted for building the tower of Babel, if the whole earth had gotten to be of three tongues?
• * 1.655

  The prima∣tiue Church praied in bar∣barous tongues.
• a 1.656

  Origen. con∣tra Ce••sum. lib. 8. Euerie nation praied in th•••• natiue and mother tongue.
• b 1.657

  Hier. in epita∣phi•• Paul. ad Eust••chium. Praier in the Syrian tongue
• c 1.658

  Paula & Eu∣stochium ad Marcellam vt commigret Bethleem. Hier. tom. 1. epist. 17.

  Praiers in as many tongues al-most as there were na¦tions in Beth∣leem.

  Euerie one of these nations had not suffi∣cient to make a quier, or els some of these nations spake the one the same tongue that the other did as diuers of these spake the greeke tongue.
• d 1.659

  August. epist. 178.

  S. August. ta∣keth it for a thing confes∣sed that prai∣ers should be vsed in barba∣rous tongues.
• e 1.660

  August. Ibidē. What is this but praying in barbarous tongues?
• * 1.661

  The seruice in the Gothiā tongue.
• * 1.662

  Kyrie eleison was not vsed in the church of Rome in S. Augustines time.
• f 1.663

  Hieron. ad Heliodorum in ••pita. Nepotiā.
• * 1.664

  The barbarus Bessians had the melodie of the Crosse in their own tongue.
• g 1.665

  Basil. epist. 63. ad Cleri••. Neo••. This order of seruice was vsed in all Churches where the people vnder∣stoode nei∣ther Hebrew, Greeke, nor Latine.
• * 1.666

  The south 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Indians the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Arabiās, the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Syrians, the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Armenians and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Babylo∣nians speake neither He∣brew, Greeke nor Latine. Basil. Ibidem. This order was obserued in al Churches, ergo amongst the Barbari∣ans which could none of the lear∣ned tongues.
• * 1.667

  The Rhemish Test. 1. Cor. 14.
• * 1.668

  Mark this pride of the Iesuits where they make themselues wiser and godlier than the prima∣tiue church.
• * 1.669

  Their Masse not Catholik.
• * 1.670

  The Rhemish Testament, fol.
• a 1.671

  4••4.
• b 1.672

  448.
• c 1.673

  228.
• * 1.674

  The Friers haue serued Ceres and Bacchus so long, that now they can not chuse but talke of them.
• * 1.675

  The Rhemish Testament fol. 451. nu. 20.
• * 1.676

  The Iesuites cannot abide the name of the Lordes supper.
• * 1.677

  The Rhemish Testament, 1. Cor. 11.
• * 1.678

  You haue smaller to re∣sist that name.
• * 1.679

  What names the Lords sup∣per is called by in the Scripture.
• a 1.680

  1. Cor. 10.
• b 1.681

  1. Cor. 11.
• * 1.682

  The Iesuites al••edge them∣selues & their fellowes for good authors to discredite the fathers.
• c 1.683

  August. epist. 118.

  The fathers expound the Lordes supper in S. Paul to be the Sacra∣ment.
• d 1.684

  Hier. in 1. Corinth. 11.
• e 1.685

  Chrysost. in 1. Cor. 11. hom. 27
• f 1.686

  Ibidem.
• g 1.687

  Chrysost. in illiud Paul••, o∣portet esse hae∣reses. tom. 4.
• h 1.688

  Theodor. in 1. Cor. 11.
• i 1.689

  Citatur ab Oc∣cumen. in 1. Cor. 11.
• k 1.690

  Beda. in 1. Cor. 11.
• l 1.691

  Haimo. in 1. Cor. 11.
• * 1.692

  S. Aug. in one short sermon calleth the Sacrament the Lordes Supper twen∣tie times.
• m 1.693

  Luk••. 14.
• * 1.694

  The Iesuites will not heare of the Lordes Supper which is the vsuall speach of the fathers, but of the Masse which in 600. yeres they find but six times, and that neither in the fathers nor to this purpose.
• * 1.695

  Ambros. epist. 33.

  The Rhemish Testament fol. 447.
• n 1.696

  Ambros. in 1. Cor. 11.
• o 1.697

  Ambros. Ibidem.
• * 1.698

  The Rhemish Testament, fol. 451.
• * 1.699

  The Iesuites demonstrati∣ons be m••re delusions.
• * 1.700

  The Church in S. Paules time had the Lords supper and their bro∣therlie feasts one at the end of the o∣ther.
• * 1.701

  These faultes n the Corin∣thians either immediatlie before or af∣ter the Lords supper made them vnfit ghests for the Lordes table.
• * 1.702

  It shold seeme by Saint Paul, their feasts were before the ministring of the Sacra∣ment.

  1. Cor. 11.
• * 1.703

  1. Corint. 11.
• * 1.704

  August. ep. 118.
• * 1.705

  The rehearsal of Christes institution needed not if it had not bin first abu∣sed with vn∣worthy com∣ming to it.
• * 1.706

  1. Cor. 1.
• a 1.707

  Ambros. in 1. Cor. 11.
• b 1.708

  Hiero. in 1. Cor. 11.
• c 1.709

  Ibidem.
• d 1.710

  Chrysost. in illud Pauli, o∣portet esse hae∣reses.
• e 1.711

  August. epist. 118.
• * 1.712

  The circum∣stances of the text maie a∣gree to the Lords supper.
• f 1.713

  Hieron. in 1. Cor. 11.
• g 1.714

  Haymo in 1. Cor. 11.
• * 1.715

  Some circum∣stances maie well agree though o∣thers did not.
• * 1.716

  Saint Paul re∣prooued thē because their disorders did not agree to the right in∣stitution of the Sacra∣ment.
• * 1.717

  S. Paul check∣eth them for their vnwor∣thy comming to the Lordes table, ergo his words belong to the Sacra∣ment.
• * 1.718

  The name of the Masse is no waie Ca∣tholike.
• * 1.719

  S. Augustine neuer vsed the worde Masse.
• h 1.720

  Eras. censura in tomum deci∣mum August. & in sermo. de tempore.
• * 1.721

  S. Ambrose hath but one in all his wri∣tinges, and that is missam facere, which is not to saie Masse.
• * 1.722

  Missa in the fathers is the sending a∣waie of those that might not be parta∣kers of the Lords table.
• i 1.723

  Polyd. de in∣uent. rerum, lib. 5. cap. 11.
• k 1.724

  Polidor. Ibi∣dem.
• * 1.725

  Missà
• l 1.726

  Beati Rhena∣ni annotatio∣nes in 4. lib. contra Marcio∣nem.

  Missa in the fathers doth as much sig∣nifie the Masse as ex∣communica∣tion doth sig∣nifie the cō∣munion.
• m 1.727

  Isidor. Origi∣num, lib. 6. de officiis.

  Missa in the fathers dire∣ctlie opposite to the sacri∣fice: are not the Iesuites then wise mē by these auto∣rities to proue it to be the name of their sacrifice?
• n 1.728

  Concil. Carth. 4. cap. 84.
• o 1.729

  Serm. de tem∣pore. 237.
• * 1.730

  This is a right paterne of the rest of their religion wherein they haue kept the words of the ancient fa∣thers, and quite peruer∣ted their meaning.
• * 1.731

  The Rhemish Testament.

  1. Cor. 11.
• * 1.732

  Though they curse, yet thou wilt blesse, saith Dauid to God in his 109. Psalme.
• * 1.733

  Iud. epist.

  He that cur∣seth vs for keeping Christs insti∣tution, cur∣seth Christ that ordai∣ned it, and God that commanded vs to obserue it.
• * 1.734

  Alhaile ma∣ster quoth Iu∣das when he gaue him a kisse, and had sold his life for earthlie gaine.
• * 1.735

  The Rhemish Test. 1. Cor. 11. Vpon it and ouer it, are the chiefest points the Iesuits can picke out of Christs insti∣tution. O, this is a terrible nar∣ration.
• * 1.736

  What kind of blessing Christ did vse.
• φ 1.737

  Matth. 26. Mark. 14. Luk. 22. 1. Corinth. 11.
• * 1.738

  Mark. 14.1. Cor. 10. The Gospels do not differ, and therfore they must all agree in this, that Christ gaue thanks to God his fa∣ther.
• * 1.739

  These two words be e∣quiualent.
• * 1.740

  Of the twaine 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is the plainer to re∣prooue the Iesuits cros∣sing.

  The Rhemish Test. vs supra.
• * 1.741

  What it is to blesse God.
• a 1.742

  Luk. 24.
• * 1.743

  What it is for one man to blesse an o∣ther.
• b 1.744

  Gen. 27.
• c 1.745

  Gen. 48.
• d 1.746

  Num. 6.
• * 1.747

  What it is to blesse time and place.
• e 1.748

  1. Samuel. 25.
• f 1.749

  Sapient. 14.
• g 1.750

  Iob. 3.
• h 1.751

  Ierem. 20.
• * 1.752

  What it is to blesse the meates and things which we vse.
• * 1.753

  What it is to blesse the meates and things which we vse.
• * 1.754

  How we are said to blesse the elements at the Lords table.
• * 1.755

  How the Ie∣suits blesse the cup.

  How we blesse it.
• * 1.756

  How the Ie∣suits blesse the cup.

  How we blesse it.
• * 1.757

  How the Ie∣suits blesse the cup.

  How we blesse it.
• * 1.758

  Our blessing is consonant to the words and rules of the scripture, theirs is not. Their mas∣sing gestures ouer the cup.
• * 1.759

  Praier bles∣seth the cup, and not our fingering or breathing on it.
• * 1.760

  Christ tooke bread to giue it, and gaue it out of his hand before he spake the words of con∣secration.
• * 1.761

  Matth. 26.
• * 1.762

  Christ did consecrate when the bread was in his disciples hands: what did he then ouer or vpon the bread can you tell?
• * 1.763

  Fol. 452. Num. 24. [This is.
• * 1.764

  Consecratiō taketh effect from Christs words, not from our fin∣gers or ge∣stures.

  The Rhemish Test. pag. 452. These wordes this is my bo∣die, must be applied by way of re∣hearsall what Christ said.
• * 1.765

  If the priest say of him∣selfe, this is my bodie, he blasphemeth most horibly: and therefore he must speak them by way of report what Christ saide.
• * 1.766

  Here is much adoe with actiuely and presently, and yet the cun∣ning sophists neuer tell what is requi∣red to actiue and present application.

  This applica∣tion the Iesu∣ites may do well to tell vs which way it must be made. The words of their Masse booke are di∣stinctè, secretè, & attentè.

  If they take breath in pro∣nouncing Christs words their applica∣tion is quite marred: for they must do it vno spiritu, nulla pausatio∣ne interposita.

  A wise obie∣ction when both the ele∣ments and our praiers witnes for vs in the eies of God and the whole church why we re∣peate the woordes of Christ, you Ie∣suits cannot tell whether we iest or no.
• * 1.767

  If this be not application, we would gladly know what it is.
• * 1.768

  The Rhemish Testament pag. 452. nu. 24. [this is. Tract. 80. in Iohan.
• * 1.769

  The word commeth to the element when it is se∣riouslie pro∣nounced, and religiouslie beleeued.
• * 1.770

  Application is made with hart and not with breath or fingers.
• * 1.771

  August. in Io∣han. tracta. 80.
• * 1.772

  The rehear∣sing of the word is neces∣sary to groūd our faith on his promise, but faith ma∣keth applica∣tion.

  This nega∣tiue ouer∣throweth the Iesuits actiue application.
• * 1.773

  The Iesuits knowing that we would charge them with the breach of Christs insti∣tution which they cannot answeare, thought best to charge vs with the like, though the points be nei∣ther material nor prooued by them to haue been v∣sed by Christ. The Rhemish Test. fol. 452. nu. 23. [bread.
• * 1.774

  Greg. in Regist.
• * 1.775

  Concil. Florent. sess. vltima in literis vnionis.
• * 1.776

  We professe our selues to be at libertie for vsing ei∣ther, and th•• rather be∣cause he would tie vs of his autho∣ritie to the one. The Rhemish Test. fol. 452. nu. 23. [bread.
• * 1.777

  The delaying of the wine with water in the Lords cup began first for so∣brietie, not for any my∣sterie.
• * 1.778

  It cannot be prooued that either Christ or his Apo∣stles vsed wa∣ter with their wine, by any good record.
• * 1.779

  Cypr. epist. 63. ad Caecil.
• * 1.780

  Cyprian doth not alleadge Christs insti∣tution for wa∣ter, but for wine.
• * 1.781

  Cypr. epist. 63. ad Caecil. Ibidem.
• * 1.782

  Cyprian pro∣ueth that the Lords cup must be mix∣ed with wine.
• * 1.783

  Cypr. li. 2. epi. 3. ••d Caecil.
• * 1.784

  Ibidem.
• * 1.785

  Cyprian vr∣geth Christs example for wine: which he calleth a mixture by reason it was both lawfull and then vsed to temper it with water.
• * 1.786

  Epist. 63. ad Caecil.
• * 1.787

  Ibidem.
• * 1.788

  Reuel. 17.
• * 1.789

  Cyprian al∣loweth water in the Lords cup, & shew∣eth what it may signifie: but he doth not deriue it from Christs example.
• * 1.790

  Cypr. lib. 1. e∣pist. 6. ad Mag∣num.
• * 1.791

  Ibidem.
• * 1.792

  Aug. de Bap∣tis. lib. 7. ca. 50.
• a 1.793

  Ex sermo. ad Infantes. Cita∣tur à Beda in 1. Cor. 10. Ibidem.
• * 1.794

  The wine sig∣nifieth the people better than water doth.

  The Iesuits themselues receiue not the saying of Cyprian.
• * 1.795

  Can the Ie∣suits tell how the people are in the cup after conse∣cration?
• * 1.796

  Their owne schooles are against them.
• b 1.797

  Mat. 26.
• c 1.798

  Chrysost. in Mat. homil. 83.
• d 1.799

  Thom. part. 3. quaest. 74. ar∣ticl. 7.

  Scotus in 4. sen∣ten. distinct. 11. quaest. 6. & In∣nocen. de officio missae part. 3. ca. 4. affirme the same.
• * 1.800

  Cypr. lib. 2. ep. 3.
• * 1.801

  Ibidem.
• * 1.802

  Ibidem.
• * 1.803

  Cyprians proofes are all for wine.
• * 1.804

  The question is not whe∣ther water was then and now may be vsed, but whether it were a part of Christs or∣dinance.
• * 1.805

  Iacobi Missa.
• * 1.806

  The Church of Rome pro∣ueth the most part of her religion by such forge∣ries.
• * 1.807

  Dist. 15. § Sancta Roma∣na.
• * 1.808

  Manie things forged in the Apostles names, and yet reiected by the church of Christ.
• * 1.809

  Basilij Missa.
• * 1.810

  These three Masses be all of one sort.
• * 1.811

  The Greeke word for mis∣cens doth not euer import the mixture of water.
• * 1.812

  Apocal. 14.
• * 1.813

  Eras. annotat. in 14. Apoc.
• * 1.814

  Concil. in Trull. sub Iusti. cap. 32.

  Iames his Masse neuer receiued nor vsed in the Church as his.
• * 1.815

  Concil. in Trull. sub Iusti. cap. 32.

  Iames his Masse neuer receiued nor vsed in the Church as his.
• * 1.816

  Ibidem. cap. 32.
• * 1.817

  Laurent. Surius to•• Concil. 2. ad∣monitio ad le∣ctorem de Cano∣nibus qui sixtae Synod. dicun∣tur.

  Ibidem.
• * 1.818

  This councell is prouinciall and late, and vehementlie suspected by themselues.
• * 1.819

  Chrysostoms Liturgie min∣gleth water with wine after conse∣cration for the people to cōmunicate.

  Chrysost. Missa.
• * 1.820

  Sodde water poured into the wine af∣ter consecra∣tion, could be no mysterie. The transla∣tion which their owne men haue set foorth, hath the words which I cite.
• * 1.821

  No maruell to see the Church of Christ mixe her wine with water at her dayly com∣munions whē the people were fasting, since the so∣berer sort of heathens in those coun∣tries durst not drinke those strong wines without some delaie. Polyd. de in∣uentoribus re∣••um lib. 5. ca. 9.
• * 1.822

  The seuenth Bish▪ of Rome from Peter first mingled water with wine at the Lords table.
• * 1.823

  The Armeni∣ans for a 1000. yeares and vp∣ward mixed no water with their wine.
• * 1.824

  Otho. ••ri∣singens. lib. 7. cap 32.
• * 1.825

  Their obiecti∣ons be so farre from trueth that their owne schoole•• go cleare with vs against them.
• * 1.826

  The Iesuites Testament is as full of po∣iurie as it is of heresie.
• * 1.827

  These be 5. as deepe wounds in the worde of Christ as e∣uer the Iewes made in his flesh.
• * 1.828

  These be 5. as deepe wounds in the worde of Christ as e∣uer the Iewes made in his flesh.
• * 1.829

  These be 5. as deepe wounds in the worde of Christ as e∣uer the Iewes made in his flesh.
• * 1.830

  These be 5. as deepe wounds in the worde of Christ as e∣uer the Iewes made in his flesh.
• * 1.831

  The Priestes sole receiuing. Mat. 26. Mark. 14. Luk. 22. 1. Cor. 11.

  As needfull to giue as to breake the bread.
• a 1.832

  August. epist. 59.
• * 1.833

  These wordes be spoken in the plurall nū∣ber & of other mens persons.
• b 1.834

  1. Cor. 10.
• c 1.835

  1. Cor. 11.
• d 1.836

  Epist. 118.
• e 1.837

  Hieron. in 1. Cor. 11.
• f 1.838

  Luk 22. 1. Cor. 11.
• * 1.839

  The Rhemish Test. sol. 451. nu. 23. [in the night.

  Christes acti∣ons and words are necessarie, though the circumstances be not.
• * 1.840

  Matth. 26.
• * 1.841

  Luk. 22.
• * 1.842

  The sanctifi∣cation of the meate is per∣formed by those wordes, but the vse & end of the sup∣per is directed by the other. The precept that Christ gaue vs to fol∣low him pre∣ciselie concer∣neth his acti∣ons.
• * 1.843

  The Rhemish Test. fol. 452. nu. 24. [take, eate. To what end is meate if it be not eaten?
• * 1.844

  The Rhe. Test. Ibidem. Eating and drinking are not essentiall parts of the Sacrament, but of the sup∣per they are.
• * 1.845

  The Iesuites neglect ••hat ••••ich Christ 〈◊〉〈◊〉, and busie 〈…〉〈…〉 which he did 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• * 1.846

  A•••• that is 〈◊〉〈◊〉 by the Poet Vi••∣gil c••m faciam vitula.
• * 1.847

  1. Cor. 11. Mat. 26.
• * 1.848

  O••ige. in Matt. tract. 35. & Chrys. in 1. Cor. ho. 27. read the very words of Christ in the future tense.
• a 1.849

  Hebr. 10.
• * 1.850

  Christ ordai∣ned a Sacra∣ment to be di∣uided, not a sacrifice to be offered.
• * 1.851

  De consecrat. dist. 2. § Rela∣tum est. They binde the Priest to cōmunicate.
• * 1.852

  The Priest charged to do as Christ did.
• * 1.853

  The words of Christ rather binde him to distribute thā him selfe to cōmunicate.
• * 1.854

  The Priest in euerie priuate Masse doth make a mock of these words take ye, eate ye.

  The Rhemish Test. fol. 451. nu. 23. [in the night.

  The Church must not choose what she will follow but rather o∣bey that which Christ commanded. The prima∣tiue Church knewe not what Priuate Masse ment.
• a 1.855

  Apostol. can. 9.
• b 1.856

  Contil. Antio••. ca••on 2.
• a 1.857

  Dionys. ecclesi. hi••rarch. cap. 3.
• b 1.858

  Iusti. Apol. 2.
• * 1.859

  They delaied their wine with water lest meere and strong wine should annoie anie of the communicāts.
• c 1.860

  De cons. dist. 2. § peracta.
• d 1.861

  Greg. Dialog. lib. 2. cap 23.
• e 1.862

  De cons. dist. 2. ¶ Si quis.
• f 1.863

  ••eg. Franciae, lib. 1. cap. 132.
• g 1.864

  Rationaìe di∣••••no officio. lib. 4. cap. 53.
• * 1.865

  No priuate Masse in the primatiue Church by their owne confession.
• h 1.866

  Chry. hom. 27. in 1. Cor.
• i 1.867

  Idem hom. in dictum Pauli oport••t haereses esse.
• k 1.868

  Theod. in 1 Cor. 11.
• l 1.869

  Haym. in 1. Cor. 11.
• * 1.870

  The verie name of the Masse, as all auncient wri∣ters vse it, im∣pugneth their priuate Masse.
• * 1.871

  The Lordes cup ras••ly ta∣ken from the people.

  Mat. 26. Luk. 22.
• * 1.872

  The cup was deliuered at the same time to the same persons with the bread, ergo both or nei∣ther pertaine to the people.
• * 1.873

  G••r••rd. Lorich. de missa publica ••r••rog••nda.
• * 1.874

  If your owne ••••mpanions 〈◊〉〈◊〉 tell you 〈…〉〈…〉, take 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to your 〈◊〉〈◊〉 consci∣ences.
• m 1.875

  Mat. 26.
• n 1.876

  Mark. 14.
• o 1.877

  Luk. 22.
• * 1.878

  The blood of Christ was shedde for the people as well as for the Priest: the cup therefore belongeth to the one as wel as to the o∣ther.
• p 1.879

  Chrys. hom. 18. in 2. Cor.
• * 1.880

  One cup pro∣posed to all both people and Priest.
• q 1.881

  1. Cor. 2.
• r 1.882

  1. Cor. 11.
• s 1.883

  1. Cor. 10.

  S. Paul exten∣deth Christes words, drinke you al of this, to the whole Church.
• * 1.884

  The people of Corinth by S. Pauls in∣struction re∣ceiued from Christ him¦selfe, were par∣takers of the Lords cup.
• * 1.885

  In 1. Cor. 10. The latin fa∣thers recei∣ued those wordes, we all are partakers of one cup, in∣to S. pauls text.
• * 1.886

  In 1. Cor. 10. The latin fa∣thers recei∣ued those wordes, we all are partakers of one cup, in∣to S. pauls text.
• * 1.887

  In 1. Cor. 10. The latin fa∣thers recei∣ued those wordes, we all are partakers of one cup, in∣to S. pauls text.
• * 1.888

  In 1. Cor. 10. The latin fa∣thers recei∣ued those wordes, we all are partakers of one cup, in∣to S. pauls text.
• * 1.889

  1. Cor. 11.

  Did S. Paul speake these wordes to the Priests alone, or to the peo∣ple also?
• * 1.890

  1. Cor. 12.

  We all as well the people as the pastours.
• * 1.891

  The Iesuites cannot take the cup from the people without sub∣uerting these maine places of Scripture and parts of Christs insti∣tution.
• * 1.892

  The Catho∣like Church ministred the communion to the people in both kinds.
• a 1.893

  Dionys. eccles. hierarch. ca. 3.
• b 1.894

  Ignat. ad Phi∣ladelph••ens.
• c 1.895

  Athanas. in 1. Cor. 11.
• d 1.896

  Cyprian. lib. 1. epis. .2.
• e 1.897

  August. quaest. super Leuiti∣cum, li. 3. cap. 57.
• f 1.898

  De conse. dist. 2. ¶ quia passus.
• g 1.899

  Chrysost. hom. 18. in 2. Cor.
• h 1.900

  De cons. dist. 2. ¶ quid sit sanguis.
• i 1.901

  Theoph. in 1. Cor. 11.
• k 1.902

  Hay. in 1. Cor. cap 10.
• l 1.903

  Paschas. de cor∣po. & sa••gui.

  Dom. cap. 43.

  Their halfe communion is so Catholik that the ma∣ster of their sentences 1200. ••eres after Christ knewe it not.
• m 1.904

  Sentent. lib. 4. dist. 1••.
• * 1.905

  De cons••••ist. 2. ¶ comp. Glos•• sa ibidem.

  1300, yeares after Christ there was no communion in one kinde, but in case of necessitie.
• * 1.906

  As though the Church could haue cause or power to chaunge Christes ordi∣nance.
• * 1.907

  Rationale diui∣nor. officio. lib. 4. cap. 42.

  Two weightie reasons for their commu∣nion in one kinde.
• * 1.908

  Gerson tract▪ contra haeresin de communione Laicorum sub viraque specie.

  The Catholik considerations for which the the Church of Rome aboli∣shed Christes institution.
• * 1.909

  To followe Christes insti∣tution is ad∣iudged to be heresie and accursed with our late Ro∣manists.
• * 1.910

  What the an∣cient Church of Rome thought of this mangling the commu∣nion.
• * 1.911

  De cons. dist. 2. § Cum omne.
• * 1.912

  The people must haue the bread and the cup deliuered them seueral∣lie and asun∣der in both kindes.
• * 1.913

  Leo serm. 4. de quadragessima.
• * 1.914

  The Man••∣ch••es the first auth••••s of the 〈…〉〈…〉.
• * 1.915

  〈…〉〈…〉 in them as 〈◊〉〈◊〉.

  •••• cons. dist. 2. § Co••perimus.

  To ••nstaine f••om the Lords cup is sacrilege.
• * 1.916

  Artic. 2. contra I p••s••. Sar••••.
• * 1.917

  To forbeare the Lords cup is sacrilege in all persons, and ages as well as it was then in the Manichees.
• * 1.918

  Leo speaketh of Lor•• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 though Gela∣s••us di••••••nt, and calleth it sacrilege in them to re∣frame the Lords cup.

  Mat. 26.
• * 1.919

  1. Cor. 11.
• a 1.920

  Chrys••st. ••••mi. 18. in. 2. Co••.
• b 1.921

  De c••••. dist. 2. §. qu••a passus.
• c 1.922

  The••phil. in 1. Cor. cap. 11.
• d 1.923

  Paschas. de ••••r∣pore & sa••g. Dom. cap. 43.
• * 1.924

  If it be sacri∣lege in the Priest, it is no lesse in the people.
• * 1.925

  They woulde haue it to be sacrilege to withstād their fansies, and to follow Christs commaunde∣ment.
• * 1.926

  Esa. 5.
• * 1.927

  We maie wel forsake them that forsooke both God and their fathers before them.
• * 1.928

  The Iesuites can not heare of eating and drinking at the Lordes ta∣ble on the peo∣ples behalfe, because they haue dischar∣ged them frō both.

  1. Cor. 11. 1. Cor. 10. Ioan. 6.
• * 1.929

  The Rhe. Test. fol. 447. n••. 21. ••you can not drinke.
• * 1.930

  The sacrifice of the Masse.
• * 1.931

  The Rhe. Test. fol. 447. Ibidem.
• * 1.932

  Their proofe•• for the Sacri∣fice of the Masse.
• * 1.933

  The Rhe. Test. Ibidem.

  They wil proue their sacrifice by S. paul him∣selfe.
• * 1.934

  God graunt you may haue eyes to see your follies. Not one of all these scrip∣tures or fa∣thers maketh for the Sacri∣fice of their Masse.
• * 1.935

  The generall order of the Romish Reli∣gion is to keep the fathers phrases, and to chaunge their faith.
• * 1.936

  How the Lordes supper maie truelie be called an oblation and a Sacrifice.
• * 1.937

  There are four kindes of Sa∣crifices in the Lords supper, and not one of them is the popish Sacri∣fice.
• * 1.938

  There are four kindes of Sa∣crifices in the Lords supper, and not one of them is the popish Sacri∣fice.
• * 1.939

  August. de side ad Pe••••. cap. 19.
• * 1.940

  The Catholike Church offe∣••eth bread and wine to God for a thankesgi∣uing in remem∣brance of his sonnes death. Our Sacrifice is the giuing of thankes and remembring of his death.
• b 1.941

  Irineus, lib. 4. cap. 32.
• c 1.942

  Ibidem. cap. 34.

  The Church offereth to God of his creatures with thanksgiuing: & sanctifying that which the faith∣full receiue at the Lords ta∣ble.
• d 1.943

  Clemens. Apost constitutio. lib. 8. cap. 17.
• e 1.944

  Liturg. Chrys. & Basil.
• f 1.945

  Lib. 4. cap. 34.
• g 1.946

  Offertorium Missae.

  Their owne Masse-booke is against the sacrifice which they defend to be in their masse.
• h 1.947

  Ibidem.
• i 1.948

  Ibidem.
• k 1.949

  Ibidem.
• * 1.950

  By their owne bookes it is e∣uident that they doe not sacrifice Christ, but the creatu••es of bread and wine.

  Marke this contradiction in their masse-booke to the sacrifice which the Ie∣suits pretend.
• l 1.951

  Aug. ad Bonif. epist. 23.

  Christ is offe∣red not in sub∣stance but in a Sacrament or representati∣on of his death.
• * 1.952

  Christ slaine for our sinnes is the true sa∣crifice of the Lords table.
• a 1.953

  Cypr. li. 2. ep. 3.
• b 1.954

  Ambros. in 10. ca. epist. ad Heb.
• c 1.955

  Euseb. de de∣monst. Euang. lib. 1. cap. 10.
• d 1.956

  Chrys. in Mat. hom. 83.
• e 1.957

  Aug. contra Faust. l. 20. c. 21.
• * 1.958

  The actions and elements of the supper resemble his death.
• f 1.959

  De cons. dist. 2. § cum frangi∣tur.
• g 1.960

  1. Cor. cap. 11. As Christ is crucified in the mysticall supper, euen so is he offe∣red.
• h 1.961

  Hier. in ps. 95.
• i 1.962

  Chrysost. in acta Apost. hom. 21.
• k 1.963

  De cons. dist. 2. § quid sit san∣guis.
• l 1.964

  Aug. Euang. quaest, l. 2. ca. 38.
• m 1.965

  De cons. dist. 2. § hoc est quod al••imus.
• n 1.966

  Glossa de cons. dist. 2. § quid sit sanguis.
• o 1.967

  Chrysost. in 10. cap. epis•• ••d Hebr.
• p 1.968

  Ambr. in 11. ca. epist. 1. ad Cor.
• q 1.969

  Eusebale de∣monstra. Euan∣gelic. lib. 1. ca. 10.
• r 1.970

  August. 83. quaest. cap 61.

  Christ is offe∣red at the table, that is a sacrament & similitude of his death is ce∣lebrated.
• s 1.971

  De cons dist. 2. § quia corpus.

  This is Christi∣an & comforta∣ble doctrine.
• * 1.972

  Theod. in cap. 8. ad Hebr.
• * 1.973

  Theoph. in 10. cap. ad Hebr••os.
• * 1.974

  What sacrifice the fathers taught, and of∣fered.
• * 1.975

  Canon Missae supra § propitio ac sereno vultu.
• a 1.976

  Liturgia Ba∣silij.
• b 1.977

  Cypr. li. 2. epist. 3. & August. 83. quaest. ca. 3.
• c 1.978

  Dionys. eccles. hierach. cap. 3.
• d 1.979

  Paschal. de cons. dist. 2. § ite∣ratur.

  The true expo∣sition of the Sacrifice at the Lordes ta∣ble.
• * 1.980

  How long the Church was without their kind of sacri∣fice.

  Sententiarum. lib. dist. 12.
• * 1.981

  The master of the sentences is against the Iesuits in the sacrifice of their Masse.
• f 1.982

  Glossa. de cons. dist. 2. ¶ semel.
• g 1.983

  § in Christo.
• h 1.984

  § Iteratur.
• * 1.985

  Thom. part. 3. qu••est. 83. art. 1.
• * 1.986

  The latter schoolemen since Thomas mistaking the former, tur∣ned these words to opus operatum, and taught the Priests act to be the right meane to ap∣plie Christes death to the quick and the dead.

  Can their do∣ctrine be Ca∣tholike that so latelie was vnknowen to their own fel∣lowes?

  24. places ci∣ted by the Ie∣suits in their testament to no purpose, and so 14. by the maker of their Apolo∣gie.
• * 1.987

  Their reall & actuall sacri∣fice must needes be made with handes, and so the gestures of the Priests hands is all the sacrifice the Iesuites haue.
• * 1.988

  What Sacri∣fice it is that God regar∣deth.
• * 1.989

  The Rhemish Test. fol. 447. Malac. 1.
• * 1.990

  The prophesy of Malachie discussed.
• * 1.991

  1. Pet. 2.

  What sacrifi∣ces the newe testament teacheth vs to offer vnto God.
• a 1.992

  Hebr. 13.

  The Sacrifice of praise.

  Of mercie.
• b 1.993

  Phil. 4.
• c 1.994

  Rom. 12. Of our selues.
• d 1.995

  Psal. 115.
• * 1.996

  Eccles. 35. Psal. 50.
• * 1.997

  These be the sacrifices of the new testa∣ment, which God requireth at our handes, and of which Malachie speaketh.
• * 1.998

  The Iesuites in alledging the fathers vse such cunning that a man cā hard∣lie perceiue to what end they name them.
• * 1.999

  Three fathers abused by the Iesuits to per∣uert the words of Malachie
• * 1.1000

  Cyprian in that place which they cite doth not so much as speake of Ma∣lachie.

  Cyp. ad Quirinū lib. 1. cap. 16.
• * 1.1001

  Iustin••••n Dial. cum Tryphone aduers. Iudaeos.

  Iustinus restrai¦neth the words of Malachie to praiers and thankes: other sacrifice he ac∣knowledgeth none in the Lords supper.
• * 1.1002

  Irenae. li. 4. ca. 33
• * 1.1003

  Ibidem. cap. 34
• * 1.1004

  Ireneus ex∣poundeth Ma∣lachies wordes of praier, obe∣dience, and thankesgiuing as we doe.
• * 1.1005

  Iren. lib. 4. ca. 34,

  Ireneus tea∣cheth not the offering of Christ to his father but of creatures for a signe of thāk∣fulnes.

  Iren. lib. 4. cap. 34
• * 1.1006

  The rest of the fathers inter∣prete Mala∣chies wordes after the same manner.
• a 1.1007

  Tertul. aduer. lud. eos.
• b 1.1008

  Tertul. aduer. Marc. lib. 4.
• c 1.1009

  Euseb. de de∣monst. Euang. lib. 1. cap. 6.
• d 1.1010

  Cyril. contra Iulia••••m ••i. 10.
• e 1.1011

  Hie. in Zacha∣riam lib. 2. ca. 8.
• f 1.1012

  August. contr. liter. Petilia. li 2. cap. 86.
• * 1.1013

  We striue not for the worde sacrifice which the Ie∣suites verie di∣ligentlie prooue, but for their kinde of sacrifice, which they cannot proue by the testi∣monie of any one father.
• * 1.1014

  In what sense the Lords sup∣per is both a Sacrament & a Sacrifice.

  Our duties to God, are our sacrifices.
• * 1.1015

  Frō these sacri¦fices the Eu∣charist hath his name▪
• * 1.1016

  This sacramēt hath the simi∣litude, and therefore the name of Christs death and passion▪
• * 1.1017

  The Iesuits are verie plentifull in heaping im∣pertinent alle∣gations.
• * 1.1018

  The Rhe. Test▪ pag. 447.
• * 1.1019

  All these fa∣thers speake of Christs bodie broken and blood shed on the cross which are resembled in this sacra∣ment.
• * 1.1020

  The power of Christs death the Iesuits at∣tribute to the Priests act.
• * 1.1021

  The Iesuites sacrifice.
• * 1.1022

  How the death of Christ is both offered and applied.
• * 1.1023

  Your feate was to pre∣pare the peo∣pl•• against a daie.
• * 1.1024

  A man maie soone pe••uer•• the fathers by skores, as the Iesuits haue done in their Testament.
• * 1.1025

  What sacri∣fice it is the Iesuits woulde establish.
• * 1.1026

  They produce the name of sacrifice vsed by the fathers and vnder∣stand thereby their owne fansies.
• * 1.1027

  The reason whie we doe not vse the worde sacri∣fice so often as the fathers doe.
• * 1.1028

  The fathers phrases begui∣led the Iesu∣its whiles they were too eger on them.
• * 1.1029

  The name of sacrifice hath no warrant in the Scripture.
• * 1.1030

  The Rhe. Test fol. 447.
• * 1.1031

  Heb. 7.
• * 1.1032

  A man shall finde manie thinges in the Rhemish ob∣seruations which are not the text of the Scripture.

  The Rhe. Test. fol. 447.
• * 1.1033

  The Iesuites would prooue if they could tell how that S. Paul cal∣leth the lords Supper a Sa∣crifice.
• * 1.1034

  This point by point is not worth a blew point.
• * 1.1035

  Their miscon∣stering of S. Paul exami∣ned.
• * 1.1036

  The faulte which the A∣postle reproo∣ueth in the Corinthians.
• * 1.1037

  This was par∣taking with I∣dols and dis∣honoring of God.
• * 1.1038

  S. Pauls rea∣son against it by waie of comparison or opposition▪
• * 1.1039

  Though Saint Pauls reason be ••ramed by waie of com∣par••son, yet the Iesuits illation is not necessary.
• * 1.1040

  Eating of thinges con∣secrated vnto Idols is fellow¦ship with di∣u••l••, though they be not sole ••••elie sa∣crificed vnto them.
• * 1.1041

  The Iesuites prooue by the diuels sacrifi∣ces that their Masse is a sa∣crifice.
• * 1.1042

  No man par∣taker of their sacrifice be∣sides the Priest because n•• man ea∣teth of it but the Priest.
• * 1.1043

  To eate and drinke at Christes table is Christs or∣dinance: to sa∣crifice is not.
• * 1.1044

  Adoration of the sacramēt.

  The Iesuites pretending to adore Ch••ist, adore the creatures of bread and wine.
• * 1.1045

  No difference betweene these two speaches: the Rocke was Christ, and this is my bo∣d••e.
• * 1.1046

  2. Cor. 13.
• * 1.1047

  Mat. 10.
• * 1.1048

  1. Thes. 2.

  We haue plai∣ner word••s that the Rock was Christ than they haue that the bread is Christ.

  Pauls speach doth inter∣pret Christs words.
• * 1.1049

  Whie do they not adore the Priest as well as the pixe?
• * 1.1050

  That which was contai∣ned in the pixe is inclo∣sed in the Priests bodie.
• * 1.1051

  Christ must not be adored at our discre∣tion, but at all times and in al places.
• * 1.1052

  If a rat should eate the host, it would make a foule worke among the Iesuits.

  No father tea∣cheth that the Sacramēt should be a∣dored.
• * 1.1053

  The Rhe. Test fol. 453. nu. 29. [not discerning the bodie.
• * 1.1054

  Halfe this would serue if anie part of it were to the purpose.
• * 1.1055

  A smoothe tale of Robin Hoode will prooue the adoration of the sacramēt as well as this that here en∣sueth.
• * 1.1056

  Epist. 118. ca. 6
• * 1.1057

  The Phari∣sees and the Iesuits meete iust in this kinde of holi∣ne••▪
• * 1.1058

  This number is sufficient if they speake to the matter.
• * 1.1059

  They suppose creatures to be Christ: and then at all aduentures they adore them in his steade.

  All these fa∣thers are im∣pertinent to this purpose. Not one of them besides Theodoret speaketh of the externall Sacrament.

  It is one to a∣dore Christ which is in the mysteries, & an other to adore the my∣steries them∣selues which no father tea∣cheth. The Rhemish Test. sol. 453. Epist. 118. ca. 3.
• * 1.1060

  S. Augustine peruerted by the Iesui••s. Aug. ••e Do••tr. Christ. li. 3. ca. 9.
• * 1.1061

  Ibidem.
• * 1.1062

  S. Aug. allow∣eth veneratiō but not adora¦tion to this or anie other Sa∣crament.
• * 1.1063

  Ibidem. li. 3. cap. 5. Not to distin∣guish the signes from the thinges is a miserable seruitude of the soule. August. de ve∣ra Religio. c. 54. Adoratiō due onelie vnto God.
• * 1.1064

  Ibidem.
• * 1.1065

  Ibidem.
• * 1.1066

  August. ep. 118.

  What vene∣ration is due to this Sacra∣ment.
• * 1.1067

  In Psal. 98.
• * 1.1068

  What S. Aug. spake of Christes flesh, the Iesuites turne to their host.
• * 1.1069

  The true ea∣ting of christs flesh is all one with the ado∣ring of it.
• * 1.1070

  The ground of all their er∣rors & abuses in the Masse is their reall presence.
• * 1.1071

  De spir. sanct. lib. 3. cap. 12.
• * 1.1072

  We adore Christ in thē: we adore not the mysteries themselues.
• * 1.1073

  The accidēts of bread and wine be ab∣surdities, they be no myste∣ries.
• * 1.1074

  How Christ is present in the mysteries.
• * 1.1075

  This is not to adore Christ but the crea∣tures.
• * 1.1076

  The mis∣construction of Christes words leadeth them to this Idolatrie.
• * 1.1077

  Christ is ado∣red in the my∣steries though he be not lo∣callie inclo∣sed in them.
• * 1.1078

  We shut him not vp in the compasse of the host, but by faith wee behold & en∣ioy his pre∣sence at his table.
• * 1.1079

  This presence is fruitful and effectuall, theirs is not.
• * 1.1080

  We must lift vp our harts not to the host, but vnto heauen.
• * 1.1081

  Chys. in 1. Cor. homil 24. Nazianz. in e∣pitaph. Gorgo∣niae.

  Christ is ho∣noured and serued on the Altar, though he be not cor∣porallie fast∣ned to the host.
• * 1.1082

  Chrysostom corrupted by the Iesuits.
• * 1.1083

  Chrys. in 1. Cor. hom. 24. We must get vp to heauen with the wings of faith before we can rightlie adore Christ, as Chryso∣stome would haue vs to a∣dore him.

  We maie be∣hold the host with lesse a∣doe, if that had beene Chrysostoms meaning.
• * 1.1084

  Nazianz. in e∣pitaph. Gorgo∣niae.
• * 1.1085

  Christ is true∣lie said to be honored on the altar, be∣cause his mer∣cies are thēce deliuered vn∣to vs and our prayers from thence offe∣red vnto him sitting in heauen.
• * 1.1086

  Ioan 4.
• * 1.1087

  Exod. 3.
• * 1.1088

  Christ is ho∣nored on earth, and yet that doth prooue him to be perso∣nallie on earth.
• * 1.1089

  Nazianzens sister had the Sacrament a∣bout her, which she did not adore, but him that was serued on the sacred ta∣ble.
• * 1.1090

  Eccles. Hie∣rarch. cap. 3.
• * 1.1091

  We will shewe you where you haue corrup∣ted this father in expresse wordes.
• * 1.1092

  If these be not his words, then you be furiously bent to forge.
• * 1.1093

  You neuer read them once.

  The Iesuits say this inuocae∣tion of the Sa∣crament was made after con∣secration, as if Diony••ius had beene mum∣bling a Masse, and not wri∣ting a booke. If the Greeke woorde had been 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as it is not, that was no cause for you to wrest it to the Sacra∣ment.
• a 1.1094

  2. Thes. 2.
• b 1.1095

  Apoc. 17.

  There are manie myste∣ries which are not the sacra∣ment of the Altar.
• c 1.1096

  Colos. 2.
• d 1.1097

  1. Tim. 3.
• e 1.1098

  Ephes. 6.
• f 1.1099

  1. Tim. 3.

  The diuine & humane na∣tures of Christ are most wonder∣full mysteries.
• g 1.1100

  Mat. 13.
• h 1.1101

  1. Cor. 4.
• i 1.1102

  1. Colos. 1.
• * 1.1103

  The Iesuites ignorance in wresting Dio∣nysius.
• * 1.1104

  The Iesuits meanes to defend their errors, be as wicked as their errors.
• * 1.1105

  He maie treat of the Sacrament, & yet speake to Christ be∣cause Christ is the trueth and perfecti∣on of the Sa∣craments.
• * 1.1106

  Do you no•• peruert the words when you force them for ado∣ration of cor∣ruptible crea∣tures against the authors m••••ning?
• * 1.1107

  A second ex∣position of Dionysius his words.
• * 1.1108

  Dionysius di∣stinguisheth the elements from that which he speaketh to. Ios. 10. 3. King. 13. Esa. 1. Psal. 24.

  The impera∣tiue moode is no praier except the person be•• such as we maie not o∣therwise speak vnto but by praier.
• * 1.1109

  Christ is not reallie coue∣red with the vailes of bread and wine, but figuratiuelie represented and truelie receiued by them.
• * 1.1110

  Dionys eccles. hierar••h. cap. 3.
• * 1.1111

  The Rhe. test. fol. 453.
• * 1.1112

  This is right Iesuiticall re∣ligion to crie thus vpon a dumb & dead creature. No blasphe∣mie.
• * 1.1113

  Iere. 2.
• * 1.1114

  The Iewish & heathen Ido∣laters were neuer so grosse
• * 1.1115

  If it be a figu∣ratiue speach as anon shall be prooued, you shall cough me the ranckest Ido∣laters that e∣uer were on the face of the earth.
• * 1.1116

  The Iesuites crake they haue the whole church with them, when they haue not so much as one father for the greatest points of their religi∣on.
• * 1.1117

  The Rhe. test. pag. 21. nu. 8. Domine non sum dignus.
• * 1.1118

  Liturg. S. Chrysost. Graec. sub finem. Origen and Chrysostome abused for in∣uocation of the Sacra∣ment.
• * 1.1119

  Look the pla∣ces when you will, and you shall finde it to be other∣wise.
• * 1.1120

  How Christ at this daie en∣tereth our roofe. Orig. hom. 5. ad. diuers.
• * 1.1121

  Christ ente∣reth the soule and not the mouth of mā.
• * 1.1122

  We must saie Lord I am not worthie, to Christ, & not to the Sacra∣ment: for the Centurion saide it to Christs persō. Christ is more truelie and substantiallie in vs than in the Sacra∣ment.

  That Christ dwelleth re∣allie and cor∣porallie in vs, See Chryso∣stome homil. 83. in Mat. Cy∣ril. in Iohan. lib. 10. cap. 13. & li. 11. ca. 26. Hi∣larius de Trini∣tate lib. 8. but that he dwel∣leth so in the Sacrament the Iesuits shall neuer prooue.
• * 1.1123

  Christ ente∣reth not our mouthes, when he com∣meth vnder our roofe.
• * 1.1124

  I••an. 14.
• * 1.1125

  ••phes. ••.
• * 1.1126

  Christ dwel∣leth in vs as trulie by his word, as by his sacramēts
• * 1.1127

  Hier. in Psal. 147.
• * 1.1128

  The flesh of Christ is eatē more truely in his worde than in the sacraments.
• * 1.1129

  De Cons. dist. 2. § vt quid paras.

  August. de ciui. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 21. ca. 25.
• * 1.1130

  No such words are found in Chrysostoms Liturgie.
• * 1.1131

  The woordes may be there, & yet not spo∣ken to the sa∣crament.
• a 1.1132

  Pag. 21. l. n. 12 pag. 463. lin. 11.
• b 1.1133

  Pa. 452. li. 30. The Iesuites bid vs see the fathers, but they doe not tell vs what we shall finde there.
• * 1.1134

  It is not e∣nough to will vs to see the fathers: they must saie to what end they alledge them.
• * 1.1135

  Chrysostome praieth to Christ in hea∣uen, not to the sacramēt.
• * 1.1136

  Liturg Chrys.
• * 1.1137

  Ibidem.
• * 1.1138

  He woulde haue Christ behold the people from heauen, not from the sa∣crament.
• * 1.1139

  Mat. 18. Mat. 28.
• * 1.1140

  How Christ is present with vs.
• * 1.1141

  August. in Io∣han. tract. 50.
• * 1.1142

  His diuinitie is present with vs.
• * 1.1143

  Idem Ibidem.
• * 1.1144

  His humanity present with vs manie waies, though not in sub∣stance.
• * 1.1145

  The Rhe. test pag. 453.

  The auncient Church did exactlie di∣stinguish the sacrament from Christ.
• a 1.1146

  De Catech. rudibus. cap. 26.
• b 1.1147

  De Baptis. lib. 3. cap. 10.
• c 1.1148

  Ambr. de Sa∣crament. li. 4. cap. 3.
• d 1.1149

  Orig. in 15. Matt.
• * 1.1150

  The whole Church cried on the people to lift vp their harts.
• e 1.1151

  Concil. Nice.
• * 1.1152

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifieth in as well as on.
• f 1.1153

  August. in Io∣han tract. 50.

  Christ is both seene and touched by faith.
• g 1.1154

  Ambr. in Luc. li. 6. ca. 8. de filia princ. Synag. vesi••••ci.
• h 1.1155

  Chrys. in 1. Cor. hom. 24.
• * 1.1156

  Ibidem.
• * 1.1157

  Christ is on the table, be∣cause his death is so∣lemnized in the mysteries on the table.
• i 1.1158

  Colos. 3.
• k 1.1159

  Phil. 3.
• * 1.1160

  Theod. dial. 2.
• * 1.1161

  Not one of the fathers which they bring spea∣keth of the externall sa∣crament saue onelie Theo∣doret.
• * 1.1162

  The mysticall signes must be adored, but not with di∣uine honor.
• * 1.1163

  These men cā plaie with shadowes ve∣rie pretilie.
• * 1.1164

  The mysticall tokens remai∣ning in their former sub∣stance must be adored.
• * 1.1165

  Theod. Dial. 2.
• * 1.1166

  If they will a∣dore the sub∣stance of breade, Theodorets wordes will helpe them forward, but not other∣wise.
• * 1.1167

  Adored is sometimes as much as ••eue••enced.
• * 1.1168

  De cons. dist. 3. § venerabiles in glossa. ¶ cul∣tu.
• * 1.1169

  The Iesuits authorities for adoration of the Sacra∣ment prooue no such thing••
• * 1.1170

  The reall pre∣sence.
• * 1.1171

  This is my bo∣die, doth not infer the reall presence.
• * 1.1172

  Not the words, but the exposition of the wordes is the thing that we striue for. The Iesuites maie soone bring a thou∣sand authori∣ties for this point, and not one to the purpose.
• * 1.1173

  The papists in this questi∣on thinke to conquere with number if not with strength of places.
• * 1.1174

  The papists beap vp places for their reall presence by hundreths, & not one to the purpose.
• * 1.1175

  It were more wisdome for them to vn∣de••stād what they alledge, than to al∣ledge they know not what.
• * 1.1176

  We striue not for Christs presence in the mysteries, but for the manner of his presence.
• * 1.1177

  The presence which the Ie∣suits hold the fathers neuer hea••d of.
• * 1.1178

  Garetius, Ver∣nierus, and the rest, if a father do but name the body of Christ, bring him in by and by for a wit∣nes on their side, and then they muster them by hun∣dreths.
• * 1.1179

  You turne all f••••m the thing, them∣selues to the signes, & that is the cause of your error.
• a 1.1180

  Psalm 64.
• b 1.1181

  Ierem. 18. Wisd. 1.
• * 1.1182

  These ••wo rules must be obserued in reading the fathers tou∣ching this matter, els we shall infinite∣ly erre.
• * 1.1183

  To mistake the signes for the thinges themselues, must needes bread a mon∣sterous error.
• * 1.1184

  A••l their alle∣ga••••ns are answered with the••e two obseruati∣ons.
• * 1.1185

  The literall pr••ssing of those wordes is the g••ound of al•• their er∣ror.
• * 1.1186

  Christ did make the bread a God, but added grace to the signe that it might becom a sacrament.
• * 1.1187

  If bread be not made the sonne o•• God, then sure the bread is not made Christ.
• * 1.1188

  If the breade be Christ it must needs be made Christ: for before it was not Christ.

  Christ doth not saie, this is chaunged for or with my bodie, but this is my bo∣die.
• * 1.1189

  If the breade be Christ, ergo it is God: for he is God.
• * 1.1190

  THIS in Christs words must needes note some∣what.
• * 1.1191

  This must bee this somwhat, and not this nothing.
• * 1.1192

  The Iesuits be loath to tell vs what is mēt by this in the wordes of Christ.
• * 1.1193

  This indeede is the right literall sense of our saui∣ours wordes, and since that is apparently false, the figu∣ratiue sense must take place.
• * 1.1194

  Matth. 26. The connexi∣on of the gos∣pell re••erreth THIS to the bread in the wordes of Christ.
• * 1.1195

  THIS of it selfe inferreth nothing, and therefore must be gui∣ded by the cir∣cumstances of the text.
• a 1.1196

  1. Cor. 11.
• b 1.1197

  1. Cor. 10.
• a 1.1198

  1. Cor. 11.
• * 1.1199

  Saint Paul in plaine speach ioyneth•• THIS to the bread Al the fathers referre THIS to the bread.
• c 1.1200

  Iust. Apol. 2.
• d 1.1201

  Tertul. aduer. Iedaeos.
• e 1.1202

  Idem li. 4. con∣tra Marcionē.
• f 1.1203

  De cons. dist. 2. § qui māducas.
• g 1.1204

  Cypr. de vn∣ctio. Chrismat.
• h 1.1205

  Iren. lib. 4. cap. 34.
• i 1.1206

  Idem. li. 4. c. 57
• k 1.1207

  Hier. ad Hedi∣biam. quaest. 2.
• l 1.1208

  Athan in 1. Cor. cap. 11.
• m 1.1209

  Epiph. in An∣chorato.
• n 1.1210

  Cyril. catechis. mystag. 4.
• o 1.1211

  Theod. ••ial. ••.
• * 1.1212

  The Iesuites loose all hope of their trans∣substātiatiō, if THIS in the wordes of Christ do not note the bread.
• p 1.1213

  De can•• dis••. 2. § ante benedi∣ctio••e••, Gl••ssa ibidem.
• q 1.1214

  Gerson. contr. Floretum li. 4.
• r 1.1215

  Gard. contra diabolic. sophist.
• s 1.1216

  In his Marc. Antoni. Consr.
• t 1.1217

  Occam. in 4. s••ntent. dist. 13.
• u 1.1218

  De cons. dist. 2. § tim••rem Glossa ibidem.
• * 1.1219

  Then haue the Iesuits small hold in the literall sense of Christs words for their trans¦substantiatiō.
• * 1.1220

  That this is the right pur∣port of Christs words it cannot be doubted.
• * 1.1221

  So long as the letter is true we maie not flie to fi∣gures: but if that be false we kill our soules except we ••lie to fi∣gures.
• * 1.1222

  Aug. de d••••tr. Christiana lib. 3 cap. 10. When the speach must be figuratiue. The literall coherence of these wordes (this bread is my bodie) is impossible, blasphemous and barba∣rous.

  To reprooue the miscon∣sterer is to re∣uerence the speaker.
• z 1.1223

  De cons. dist. 2. § panis est in Altari. Glossa ibidem. Not possible by their owne confession, that breade should be the bodie of Christ.

  To saie that bread is christ in proper speach is hor∣rible blasphe∣mie.
• * 1.1224

  To eate flesh in proper speach is a∣gainst nature and far from all pietie.
• a 1.1225

  August. con∣tra aduers. legis & Propheta. lib. 2. cap. 9.
• b 1.1226

  Idem contra eundem. lib. 1. cap. 14.
• c 1.1227

  Cyril. in Iohan. lib. 4. cap. 22.
• d 1.1228

  August. de doctr. Christ. lib. 3. cap. 16.

  To eate flesh is an hainous act: ergo Christs words are figuratiue This is S. Au∣stens reason, if the Iesuites can re••ure him, let them.
• * 1.1229

  Where Christ said, this bread is my bodie: the Ie∣suits say, this must be no bread before it can be my bodie.
• * 1.1230

  It is as great blasphemie for the bread to be turned into Christ, as to be Christ.
• * 1.1231

  The Iesuits would faine shift to haue the letter stand true, but it will not be.
• * 1.1232

  The Iesuites vrging the letter st••ppe fardest from the letter.

  It is a world to see their Schoolemen tosse the woordes of Christ from post to pillo••: and at length to leaue them as men in a Maze.
• * 1.1233

  Not one of the auncient fathers euer affirmed the woordes of Christ to be literall.
• * 1.1234

  Those later grecians that pre••le the let∣ter doe it to far other pur∣p••ses than the Iesuits doe.
• * 1.1235

  Whie Christ was to saie this is my bo∣die, and not this is the fi∣gure of my bodie.
• * 1.1236

  All the aunci∣ent fathers with one con∣sent affirme the wordes of Christ to be figuratiue.
• a 1.1237

  Tertul. lib. 4. contr. Marc.
• b 1.1238

  Aug. in Leuit. quaest. 57.
• * 1.1239

  Idem contra A∣dimant. cap. 12.
• * 1.1240

  The manner of Sacramēts is to haue fi∣guratiue spea∣ches.
• d 1.1241

  Idem in psal. 98.
• e 1.1242

  Idem de doctr. Christ. li. 3. c. 16
• f 1.1243

  Idem in psa. 3.
• g 1.1244

  Cypr. de vn∣ctio. Chrisma••.

  The Lorde taught his disciples at his last supper howe the signes and the things might haue the same names.
• h 1.1245

  Orig. in Leuit. hom••••. 7.
• i 1.1246

  Idem in cap. 15 Matth.
• k 1.1247

  Ambros. de iis qui initiātur mysterii•• cap. 9.
• l 1.1248

  Idem in 1. Cor. 11.
• m 1.1249

  Idem de Sa∣cramentis lib. 4. cap. 5.
• n 1.1250

  Hyer. in 26. Matth.
• o 1.1251

  Idem in 14. Marci.
• p 1.1252

  Chrysost in psal. 22.
• q 1.1253

  Idem ad Cae∣sarium Mona∣chum.
• r 1.1254

  Author. operit imperfect. in Mat. homil. 11.
• s 1.1255

  Nazianz. in oratio. de pasch.
• * 1.1256

  Theod. dial. 1. Our Sauiour at h••s last sup∣per chaunged the names, not the sub∣stances of the elements: thē must needes the speach be figuratiue.
• u 1.1257

  De consecrat. dist. 2. § hoc est. Prosper.
• * 1.1258

  Glossa Ibidē.
• y 1.1259

  Beda in Lucā, cap. 22.
• z 1.1260

  Christ. Druth∣mar. in Mat.
• a 1.1261

  Bertram de corp. & sang. Dom.
• * 1.1262

  Though the Iesuites haue not one an∣cient father for their lite∣rall sense, yet they will help the matter with brag∣ging.
• * 1.1263

  The Iesuits will haue the figure & the trueth to be al one.
• * 1.1264

  Though the figure might be also the trueth, as it cannot, yet a figuratiue speach can no waie be pro∣per.
• * 1.1265

  Will it please the Iesuits to learne that the speach is figuratiue, ••r∣go not proper.
• b 1.1266

  De doct. Chri∣stiana li. 3. ca. 5.
• * 1.1267

  To take a fi∣guratiue speach accor∣ding to the letter killeth the soul.
• * 1.1268

  The signe in no sacrament can be the thing it selfe.
• * 1.1269

  The signe & the trueth must be two things.
• c 1.1270

  Ire. li. 4. ca. 34.
• d 1.1271

  De cons. dist. 2. § hoc est.
• e 1.1272

  August. con∣tra Maximi∣num li. 3. ca. 22.
• f 1.1273

  Chryso. in Ge∣nes. hom. 35.
• g 1.1274

  Aug. epist. 23.
• h 1.1275

  De doct. Chri∣stiana, lib. 3. cap. 5.
• * 1.1276

  The sixt of S. Iohns Gospell directeth the wordes of Christ at his last supper.
• * 1.1277

  The 6. of S. Iohn doth not teach the ea∣ting of the signes at the Lordes table, but the eating of the thinges themselues.
• * 1.1278

  The thinges themselues that are pro∣posed and re∣ceiued at the Lords table were fully de∣clared by our Sauiour in the 6. of S. Iohn.
• * 1.1279

  The fathers are all of that opinion.
• i 1.1280

  Chrysost. hom. 83. in Mat.
• * 1.1281

  The same matter before debated.
• k 1.1282

  Cypr. de caenae Domini.
• * 1.1283

  The same speach hand∣led in the 6. of Iohn.
• l 1.1284

  Cyril. in Iohan. lib. 4. cap. 14.
• m 1.1285

  August. con∣tra aduers. legis & Prophet. lib. 1. cap. 24.
• * 1.1286

  If the flesh of Christ be ••a∣ten in the Lordes sup∣per as he taught it should be in the 6. of Iohn, then must the wordes of the supper be ex∣pounded by the 6. of Iohn: and the one being figura∣t••iue, the other cannot be li∣terall.
• * 1.1287

  The breade must be eaten corporallie at the Lordes ta∣ble though the flesh of Christ cannot be eaten there or else∣where but on∣lie spiritual∣lie.
• * 1.1288

  The bread must be eaten corporallie: & the flesh of Christ spiri∣tuallie: ergo the bread is not his bodie but by a figure of speach v∣suall to this & other sacra∣ments.
• * 1.1289

  The Lordes Supper ad∣deth Seales and assuran∣ces to the promise made in the sixt of Iohn, but al∣tereth not the doctrine.
• * 1.1290

  You must needes haue it so, except you will dis∣sent from all your fellowes and from the fathers.
• * 1.1291

  Ioan. 6.
• * 1.1292

  The Papistes verie greedily tie the 6. of Iohn to the sacrament, little thinking it would ouer∣throw their real presence.
• o 1.1293

  Artic. 5. di∣uis. 2. contra e∣piscop. Sarunt.
• p 1.1294

  Part. 3. obiect. 1. In Marco Constantio.
• * 1.1295

  That Christ perfourmed this promise ONLIE in the supper, is as false, as it is true that he did there perfourme it.
• * 1.1296

  The Rhe. test. fol. 236. nu. 53. [you shall haue no life.
• * 1.1297

  If the 6. of Iohn be figu∣ratiue, then the wordes of the supper are also figu∣ratiue: but the 6. of Iohn is fi∣guratiue: ergo. Clemens. Alex. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 lib. cap. 6 Te••tula•••• re∣su••rectis. car∣nis.
• * 1.1298

  Orig. in Leuit. hom. 7.
• * 1.1299

  The figura∣tiue sense is the spirituall sense: the li∣terall is car∣nall.
• * 1.1300

  Chrysost. in I••∣han. homil. 46.
• * 1.1301

  To vnderstād the woordes simplie as they lie is to vnderstand them carnal∣lie.
• * 1.1302

  The woordes in S. Iohn. are figura∣tiue because eating and drinking are referred not to the bodies but to the soules of the faithfull.
• u 1.1303

  Basil. in psal. 33.
• * 1.1304

  The inwarde man eateth the flesh of Christ.
• x 1.1305

  Orig. in cantica canticorum ho∣mil. 2.
• * 1.1306

  The soul must relesse the bread of life.
• y 1.1307

  Tertul. de re∣s••••rect. carnis.
• * 1.1308

  This waie Christ is ea∣ten, and not with teeth & iawes.
• x 1.1309

  Cypr. de caen•• Domini.
• * 1.1310

  What it is to eate Christ.
• a 1.1311

  Athan. in hec quicunque dex∣erit verbum in ••ilium hominis.
• b 1.1312

  August. tract. in Iohan. 25.
• c 1.1313

  Ibidem tract. 26.
• d 1.1314

  Bernard. in psal. qui habi∣tat. sermo. 3.
• * 1.1315

  The verie text confir∣meth the fa∣thers speaches Iohannis sexto,
• e 1.1316

  vers. 27.
• f 1.1317

  vers. 29.
• g 1.1318

  vers. 35.

  Non ambulan∣do sed credendo ad Christum currimus. Au∣gust tract. 26. in Iohan.
• h 1.1319

  vers. 53.

  Beleeuing prooued to be eating.
• i 1.1320

  vers. 47.
• k 1.1321

  vers. 51.
• l 1.1322

  vers. 54.
• * 1.1323

  The wicked doe not eate though they grind with their teeth & swallowe with their iawes neuer so fast.
• m 1.1324

  Rom. 10.
• * 1.1325

  The manner of eating Christes flesh is spirituall by faith and vn∣derstanding the wordes expressing it be allegori∣call.
• * 1.1326

  If the Supper be correspon∣dent to the doctrine of our Sauiour in the 6. of Iohn, the ma∣ner of eating Christes flesh must be spiri∣tuall by faith, not corporall with teeth, & the wordes, this is my bo∣dy, figuratiue.
• * 1.1327

  This is a poore shift: for sacramentall eating is no more but ea∣ting the sa∣cred signe of that heauen∣lie foode.
• * 1.1328

  The Iesuits would faine g••t from the Capernites if they coulde tell how.
• * 1.1329

  What Christ spake of the soul the Ca∣pernites vn∣derstood of the body: let the Iesuits therefore dresse and hide the ••lesh of Christ how they can from their ••ight and tast, so long as they will eate it with teeth & iawes they shalbe Caper∣nites.
• * 1.1330

  It skilleth not how Christes flesh be coue∣red, but with what part it is eaten soul or bodie.
• * 1.1331

  Man hath but two kindes of eating as him selfe consi∣steth of two parts: for ech part one.
• n 1.1332

  Iohn. 6.

  Which of those twaine will the Iesu∣its choose, but they must ei∣ther forge their corpo∣rall eating with teeth, or ioine arme in arme with the Capernites.
• * 1.1333

  Then you dif∣fer from the Capernites in seeing but not in eating the flesh of Christ. Whether a man maie not carnallie eate that which he neither seeth nor tasteth: let the Iesuits consult the Cookes.
• o 1.1334

  Athan. in il∣lud quicunque dixeris verbum in filium homi∣nis.
• p 1.1335

  Chrys••n Iohā. homil. 45.
• q 1.1336

  Orig. in Leuit. hom. 7.
• * 1.1337

  Theophi. in 6. Iohannis.
• r 1.1338

  Cypr. de caena Domini.
• s 1.1339

  August. in psalm. 98.
• t 1.1340

  Oecume. in 6•• Iohannis.
• u 1.1341

  Beda. in 6. Iohannis.
• * 1.1342

  If Christ mēt the soule of man should eat his flesh by faith, they be capernites that bring their mouthes to eate it, though they neither see it nor tast it.
• * 1.1343

  There may be manie diffe∣rences in ea∣ting, but al ea∣ting the flesh of christ with teeth & iawes is Caperniti∣call.
• * 1.1344

  Not one that is aunci∣ent.
• * 1.1345

  For that you misconster some that be auncient, but their true meaning is against it.
• * 1.1346

  Mo Saintes than euer were in the Kalendar.
• * 1.1347

  Four late gre∣cians vrge the letter, but to no such end as the Ie∣suits doe.
• * 1.1348

  Damas••ib. 4. cap. 14.
• * 1.1349

  Nice••. Synod. 2. actio. 6.
• * 1.1350

  Theophil. in 26. Matth.
• * 1.1351

  Euthymius in Matth. cap. 64.
• * 1.1352

  Aug. ••pist. 118.
• * 1.1353

  Chrysost. homil. 29. in 2. Cor.

  De cons. dist. 2. § quid sit.
• * 1.1354

  Leo. serm. 6. de ie••••io 7. mēsis.
• * 1.1355

  Tertul. de re∣surrect. carnis.
• * 1.1356

  Cyril. lib. 4. cap. 14. in Iohan••
• * 1.1357

  It may be you neuer vnder∣stood them.
• * 1.1358

  It is no s••ame for vs to suffer as Christ did, nor glorie for you to doe as Iudas did.
• * 1.1359

  The meaning of Damascen and others after him in pressing the letter.
• * 1.1360

  Euthymius in Matth. cap. 64. He vrgeth the wordes lest the signes should seeme to be without vertue.
• * 1.1361

  Theophil. in 6. Iohannis.
• * 1.1362

  Not a figure onely, that is not an idle signe without fruite and ef∣fect.
• * 1.1363

  No figures of thinges to come.
• * 1.1364

  All figures abolished by the comming of Christ in flesh.
• * 1.1365

  The defēders of Images would not haue the sa∣cramen•• cal∣led an Image of Christ.
• * 1.1366

  Extat in 2. Synod. Nicen. actio. 6.
• * 1.1367

  The cause whie the Gre∣tians pressed the letter is nothing neere the Iesuites real presence. Damasce. lib. 4. cap. 14.

  This Epipha∣nius was as earnest for painted and carued Ima∣ges as the el∣der was a∣gainst them.
• * 1.1368

  Nicen Synod. 2. actio. 6.
• * 1.1369

  This Epi∣phanius might haue beene a Iesuit for his lustie craking.
• a 1.1370

  Chrysost. in Matt. hom. 83
• b 1.1371

  Idem hom. 17. in epist. ad Heb.
• c 1.1372

  Gelas. consra Eutichen.
• d 1.1373

  Theod. dial. 2.
• * 1.1374

  Dyonis. eccle∣siast. hierach. cap 3.
• * 1.1375

  Naz••anz. in Apolog••••••••. ••. Apost••l. con∣s••••••. li. 6. ca. 3.
• * 1.1376

  Macar. h•• 27.
• * 1.1377

  Am••r••s. d••n••∣f••••ie. E. 1. ca. 48.
• k 1.1378

  August. o••••o∣gintarum quae∣••ionum. cap. 61. The sacramēt is an Image of Christes death and passion.
• l 1.1379

  De cons. dist. 2. § Sacrifi••ium. Sigebert. in an. 885.

  Regino li. 2. an. 868.

  Chrono. Can••••••. If these Gre∣cians had beene of the Iesuits opini∣on the mat∣ter had not beene great, but now they are not.

  How the late Grecians that presse the letter may be vn∣derstood.

  The Iesuites trust more to their practises then to their authorities, otherwise their holde were verie slender.
• * 1.1380

  The fathers abused th••t are all••adged for the ••e••. eating the fle••h of christ with teeth and ••awe••.
• * 1.1381

  The rule in in∣terpr••teth al the fathers that seeme to say the fleshe of Christ is eaten with our mouths. This Rule for the signes to beare the names of the things them∣selues, is pro∣per to Sacra∣ments.
• * 1.1382

  Their owne rules in all reason are to limite their own speech.
• * 1.1383

  This must be vnde••stood of the s••gnes & not of t••e things them∣selues o•• els there is a con∣t••adiction in the ••athers.
• * 1.1384

  Three things that may be doubted of in the sacramēt.

  The names of the elements changed after con••ecration.
• a 1.1385

  Theod. dial. 1.
• b 1.1386

  Tertul. aduer. I••daeos.
• c 1.1387

  Cypr. de vnct. Chrismatis.
• d 1.1388

  Ambr. de Sa∣cramentis lib. 5. cap 4.
• e 1.1389

  De consecrat. d••st. 2 ¶ hoc est quod.
• f 1.1390

  Chrysost. ad Caesar. M••n••••l.
• g 1.1391

  Rola••. de Ins. cl••ri••. lib. 1. cap. 31.
• h 1.1392

  B••rtram. de corp. & sa••g. Dom.
• i 1.1393

  August. ad Boni••ac. epis••. 23.

  Can there be a plainer rule to keepe vs f••om ras•• mi∣sta••ing the fathers?
• k 1.1394

  Contra Adi∣mant. cap. 12.
• * 1.1395

  The fathers after conse∣cration ne∣uer called the bread by anie other name thā the body of Christ, though the substance of bread still re∣mained.
• * 1.1396

  The bread re∣maineth after consecration in his proper and former natu••e and SVBSTANCE
• l 1.1397

  Gelas. contra Eutichen.
• m 1.1398

  Theod. dial. 2.
• n 1.1399

  Ambros. de sa∣cramentis. lib. 4. cap. 3.
• o 1.1400

  I••en. li. 4 c. 32.
• p 1.1401

  Et cap 34.
• q 1.1402

  Origen. in 15. Matth.
• r 1.1403

  Epipha. in Anchora••o.
• s 1.1404

  Cypr. de Caenae Domini.
• t 1.1405

  Chrysost. ad Ce∣s••r. Monach.
• u 1.1406

  Aug. serm. ad infantes.
• x 1.1407

  Idem de doctr. Christ. li. 3. ca. 5.
• y 1.1408

  Extat in 2. Synod. Nicen. actio. 6.
• z 1.1409

  Bertram de corp. & sangui∣ne.
• * 1.1410

  We our selues can speake no plainer words than the fa∣thers did be∣fore vs a∣gainst the Ie∣suits error.

  The power & operation of the signes.

  Their power and operati∣on chaunged, causeth the change of their names though their substance re∣maine.
• a 1.1411

  Cypr. de vn∣ctio. Chrism••••.
• c 1.1412

  Ambr. de sa∣cramentis lib. 6 cap. 1.
• d 1.1413

  Ibidem. li. 4. cap. 4.
• e 1.1414

  Ibidem. lib. 6. cap. 1.
• f 1.1415

  Cel••s. contra E••tichen.
• g 1.1416

  Hilar. de Tri∣••it. lib. 8.
• h 1.1417

  Idem in psal. 127.
• i 1.1418

  Leo de cons. dis••. 2. •• in qui∣bus.
• k 1.1419

  〈◊〉〈◊〉 hom. 83. in M••••••h.
• l 1.1420

  August. tra••t. in ••••••an. 26.
• m 1.1421

  I••em de cons. dist. 2. § qui manducat.
• n 1.1422

  Idem. in psal. 77.
• o 1.1423

  Idem. t••act. in Iohan. 27.
• p 1.1424

  Euthym. in Ma••••. cap 64.

  We must not looke to the substance of the signes, but vnto the vertue of them.
• q 1.1425

  The ••d. dial. 2.
• r 1.1426

  Ambros. de sacra••en••is. ••ib. 4. cap. 4.
• * 1.1427

  The naturall and true flesh, of Christ is eaten with teeth.
• s 1.1428

  Mark. 7.

  Nothing can enter both t••e hart and the bellie.
• t 1.1429

  Cor. 6.
• u 1.1430

  Mat. 15.
• x 1.1431

  Mark 7.
• * 1.1432

  1. Cor. 8.
• * 1.1433

  Rom 17.
• a 1.1434

  Heb. 13.
• b 1.1435

  Io•• 6.
• c 1.1436

  Ephes. 3.
• d 1.1437

  Ch••••sost. hom. 43. in lo••n.
• e 1.1438

  Idem ex variis 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in Mat 9.
• f 1.1439

  Ambros. de ijs qui ••••steriis 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• g 1.1440

  De consecrat. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 2 •• non es∣••a••is.
• h 1.1441

  Cyprian. de Caena Do••••.
• i 1.1442

  Cyril. lib. 3. in I••han. cap. 28.
• k 1.1443

  Aug••le cons. dist. 2. § verum sub sigma.
• b 1.1444

  Idem de verbis Domini in E∣••••••g. L••c••••, sermo. 33.
• m 1.1445

  Idem. tract. in Iohan. 25.
• n 1.1446

  Bertram. de corp. & san∣guine Domini. Christ is pres∣sed with teeth swallowed with iawes, or receiued into the belly. Their owne law de••esteth it for an here∣sie.
• o 1.1447

  De cons. dist. 2. ¶ non isle panis. & ¶ ••ribus gradibus. Glos∣sa ibidem.
• p 1.1448

  De cons. dist. 2. ¶ ego Berenga∣nius. Glossa i∣bidem.
• * 1.1449

  You must not onely answer, but your an∣swers must be sound and good.
• * 1.1450

  A man may better take hot for cold and ••ower for sweet, thā sub∣stance for ac∣cidentes.
• * 1.1451

  And so chalk doth signifie cheese.
• * 1.1452

  First their wordes bee plaine: and their mea∣ning is plai∣ner, as shall appeare when we come to the drift of their conclu∣sion.

  Neuer Catho∣like father saide the sub∣stance of bread was a∣bolished by consecration as the Iesuits saie.
• * 1.1453

  If the signes b••a••e t••e n••mes of the things them∣selu••••: ••hen the le••••••s au∣th••••••ties are vn••u••ficient to con••lude th••t Ch••••st is eaten wi••h our teeth.
• * 1.1454

  We must as∣c••nd to hea∣u••n before we eate Christ: which with our mouthes we cannot.
• * 1.1455

  If the fathers of ••••ne that Christ is not eaten w••th teeth as they do ••hen these pl••••es must be ••nderstood of ••he signes and no•• of the th••••gs them∣s••l••es.
• * 1.1456

  As many as the••e be ••••••es in the ball of myne eye.
• * 1.1457

  〈…〉〈…〉. ••18
• b 1.1458

  〈…〉〈…〉 23. &
• * 1.1459

  〈◊〉〈◊〉 a ••dimant. cap. 12.
• d 1.1460

  〈…〉〈…〉. 29. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 2 Cor.
• e 1.1461

  Id•••• a•• C••sar. M••nach.
• f 1.1462

  〈1 paragraph〉〈1 paragraph〉
• g 1.1463

  Id••••. contra 〈◊〉〈◊〉 l••b. 4.

  The Iesu••••s h••ue no hold in these ••a∣thers, but on∣ly because they call thē signes by the names of the thing••, which is as commō with them as sand with the Sea.
• h 1.1464

  Cyri••l. lib 4. cap. 14. in I••h.

  By cognato tacti••, 〈…〉〈…〉, & ci••o, Cy••il meaneth the su••stance of bread and wine, & n••t of Christs bodie.
• i 1.1465

  De cens•• ••r••t. ••ist. § 2. quid sit.
• * 1.1466

  As ••••ough in strict and 〈…〉〈…〉 any thing could be drūk both by the soule and the bodie.
• k 1.1467

  De cons. dist. 2. ¶ species in hom. Pascha.
• l 1.1468

  ••eo de ieiunio 7. mensis ser∣mo. 6.
• * 1.1469

  Leoes wordes examined.
• * 1.1470

  But Euti∣ches against whome Leo spake, imagi∣ned that Christes body had neither shape, quanti∣tie nor cir∣cumscription, and so doe the Iesuites dreame of Christ in the Sacrament. If Leo refel Eutiches, he must also refel the Iesuits, for they spoile Christ of the naturall con∣ditions of a bodie as Eu∣tiches did.
• * 1.1471

  By this argu∣ment it is eui∣dent in what sense Theo∣doret & Gela∣sius vse the word substāce when they saie the sub∣stance of bread remai∣neth.

  The Iesuites reiect the ma∣ior, minor, & conclusion of the auncient fathers a∣gainst Eu••i∣ches: be they not then quarter ma∣sters in his shippe?

  Gelas. contra Eutich.
• * 1.1472

  If Christ con∣sist of two sub∣stances di∣uine and hu∣mane, the sa∣crament like∣wise cōsisteth of two substā∣ces an hea∣uenlie and an earthly.

  Theod. dialog. 2.
• * 1.1473

  If the sacra∣ment be trās∣substantiated, so must the humanitie of Christ be like••wise changed▪
• * 1.1474

  Theodorets conclusion against Eu∣t••ches.
• * 1.1475

  Theod. dial. 2. If Christs hu∣mane nature in heauē keep his former sub¦stance: so doth the bread which is an Image of that mystery. Both their Se¦minaries can∣not answ••re this a••gumēt but by con∣demning Ge∣las••us and Theodoret fo•• here••ikes or at least themselues.
• * 1.1476

  De consecrat. distinct. 2. & hoc est quod dico.
• * 1.1477

  Ther•• must be two diffe∣rent substan∣c••s in the Sa∣crament as there are in the pe••son of Christ.

  Leoes words w••r•• inten∣ded against the Eutichi∣ans.
• * 1.1478

  Hoc: doth not signifie the selfe same bodie, but the selfesame pointe•• of ••aith, or pro∣po••tion of the image and the original.
• * 1.1479

  The real pre∣sence had beene the next way to help Euti∣ches error.
• * 1.1480

  The substāce of it you affirme in wordes, but you spoile ••t of all naturall shape, quan∣titie, and cir∣cumscription.
• * 1.1481

  Christs bodie in the Sacra∣ment is euen such a bodie as Eutiches did imagine.

  Leo doth not saie that Christs bodie was enclosed in the host: but they ought to be∣leeue that of Christs bodie in heauen, which they saw in the ele∣ments recei∣ued with their mouthe••, to wit, the per∣fect continu∣ance of their former sub∣stance.

  We doe not interpret the fathers as pleaseth vs, but we take heede that we subuert not their maine do∣ctrine by some of their phrases which by their owne rules maie be reuoked to a good sense.
• * 1.1482

  If this be not lawfull in expounding the fathers, I maruell what is.
• * 1.1483

  You are an∣gry because the fathers doe not serue your follies no better.
• * 1.1484

  It cannot be now mista∣••i••g they have so often beene tolde of th••ir error, & they still defer••d it as they did before.
• * 1.1485

  Vide supra fol. 760.

  This is spoken of the thinges thēs••lues: ergo the Iesuit••s places must be ment of th•• signes cal∣led by ••he names of Chr••sts bodie and blood, ••r el••e there is a mani••••st contradiction in the fathers We••e we not wisely occupi∣ed to followe the Iesuits in this point••
• * 1.1486

  Eating is in vaine without nourishing. If then Christes flesh doe en∣ter our mouthes it must nourish our bodies.
• * 1.1487

  We would not haue it so: but if you vn∣derstand the fathers when they say the one, why doe you peruert them in the other?
• a 1.1488

  Iust. Apol. 2.
• b 1.1489

  Iren. lib. 4. cap. 34.
• c 1.1490

  Idem lib. 5.
• d 1.1491

  Ibidem.
• * 1.1492

  So Cyprian saith, panis in carnem & san∣guine•• muta∣tus 〈◊〉〈◊〉 vitam & incre∣••entum corpo∣ri••••••.
• * 1.1493

  A man would thinke this were plaine enough for farre yonger scholers, than the Iesuites would seeme to be.
• * 1.1494

  Our resurre∣ction doth not depend vpon the tou∣ching of Christes flesh with teeth, for then the wicked should ••ise to eternal life.

  Concil. Nicen. 1.
• c 1.1495

  Hom. 45. in Iohannem.
• f 1.1496

  Chrysost. hom. 45. in Iohan.

  As Christ is seene & tou∣ched, so is he eaten and di∣gested.

  Both these speaches: the flesh of Christ entereth our mouthes, and increaseth the substance o•• our flesh, haue o••e and the sel••esame construction.
• * 1.1497

  Ambros. in 9. Lucae li. 6. § & 〈◊〉〈◊〉 vir cui nomen Iairus.
• h 1.1498

  Idem in pre∣cati••. praeparāt. ad M••ssa••••.
• i 1.1499

  Cypr. de caena Domini.
• * 1.1500

  That eating of Christ in the Sacramēt which wee teach the Church helde for a 1000. yeares: theirs is not yet a∣greed on a∣mongst them∣selues.

  What man∣ner of eating Christ in the Sacrament the fathers taught.
• k 1.1501

  Origen. tract. 35. in 26. Mat.
• l 1.1502

  Idem in Leuit. hom 9.
• m 1.1503

  Idem tract. 35. in 26. Mat.
• n 1.1504

  Athana. in il∣lud quicunque dixerit verbū.
• * 1.1505

  Not corpo∣rally lodged in the sto∣macks, but spiritually di∣stributed to your soules.
• o 1.1506

  Cypr. de caena Domini.

  This nourish∣ment is pro∣per to the spi∣rit, ergo not common to the bodie.
• p 1.1507

  Ambros. in o∣ratio. praeparan. ad Missam 1.

  How hapned S. Ambrose had quite for∣gotten his mouth and his iawes in all this long praier before his approch∣ing to the my∣steries?
• q 1.1508

  Aug. in psal. 103.
• * 1.1509

  Not the sto∣mack nor the bellie.
• r 1.1510

  Idem. tract. 26. in Iohan.
• * 1.1511

  The bodie is not regenera∣ted: the body therefore is not fed with the true flesh of Christ.
• s 1.1512

  Idem. in serm. de corp. & sa••∣guine Domini. Ci••••tur à Beda in 1. Cor ca. 10.
• t 1.1513

  A••st. in serm. de verbis E∣uangelij. Cita∣tur à Beda ibidem.
• * 1.1514

  Idem in E∣uang. Luc. serm. 33.
• x 1.1515

  Macar. ho. 27.
• * 1.1516

  Euseb. Emisse∣nus. de cons. dist. 2. ¶ quia cor∣pus.
• * 1.1517

  Not with the hand of thy bodie.
• * 1.1518

  What shall the mouth haue, if the inward man must swallowe the whole?
• a 1.1519

  Bertram. de corpor. & sang. Domini.
• * 1.1520

  Not acci∣dents without a subiect.
• b 1.1521

  Ibidem.
• c 1.1522

  Ibidem.
• d 1.1523

  Ibidem.
• e 1.1524

  Ibidem.
• * 1.1525

  The flesh of Christ then is neither pres∣sed with teeth nor broken in peeces.
• * 1.1526

  Ibidem.
• g 1.1527

  Paschas. de corp. & sang. Domini. ca. 9.
• h 1.1528

  Cap. 11.
• i 1.1529

  Cap. 12.
• k 1.1530

  Cap. 14.
• * 1.1531

  Doe the An∣gels eat flesh? or haue they teeth?
• l 1.1532

  Cap. 29.
• m 1.1533

  Cap. 38.
• n 1.1534

  Cap 19.
• o 1.1535

  Cap. 46.
• * 1.1536

  Not the wide∣nes of thy mouth to re∣ceiue Christ, but the bo∣some of thy soul, that is thy saith.
• p 1.1537

  Fulbertus in epist. ad Adeo∣datum.
• * 1.1538

  That is not by local inclu∣sion, but by mysticall ope∣ration.
• * 1.1539

  This is the mouth that receiueth Christ: & not the bodily mouth as the Iesuits hold.
• * 1.1540

  The spirituall eating the fa∣thers taught: the corporall they did not teach.
• * 1.1541

  Your adding that which you should not, is no war∣rant for vs to beleeue it. Iohn. 6.
• * 1.1542

  Christ is not meate for both the parts of man: and that which is eaten is meate.
• q 1.1543

  Chrys. homil. 43. in Iohan.
• r 1.1544

  Ambros. de iis qui initiantur mysteriis, ca. 9.
• s 1.1545

  Aug. de verbis Dom. in Lucam serm. 33.
• t 1.1546

  Cypr. de Caena Domini.
• * 1.1547

  For what part christ is meat, that part he nourisheth: which the Ie∣suits dare not confesse to be true of the bodie.
• u 1.1548

  Chrys. hom. 83. in Mat. & 45. in Ioan.
• y 1.1549

  Ibidem.
• x 1.1550

  Chrysost. in Matt. hom. 83.
• * 1.1551

  Cypr. de cae 11 Domini.
• z 1.1552

  I••••. dist. 2. d•• consec. ¶ In quibus]
• z 1.1553

  Athana in il∣lud quicunque dixerit verbū.
• * 1.1554

  Chrysos••. in 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 83. No one 〈…〉〈…〉 the bod••e & the so••l.
• * 1.1555

  Iohn. 6. He that abi∣deth not in Christ doth not eate christ by the manifest re∣solution of Christ him∣selfe. Iohn. 6.
• * 1.1556

  Such as liue not by Christ doe not eate Christ.
• * 1.1557

  A sacramen∣tall eating hath in it both the cor∣porall eating of the signes with teeth, & the spirituall eating of Christ by faith.
• g 1.1558

  Aug. de ciui••. Dei. li. 21. c. 25. To eate christ in a sacramēt is not so much, as to eate him indeede.
• e 1.1559

  Ibidem.
• f 1.1560

  Ibidem.
• h 1.1561

  Augu••. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Io∣an. tract. 26. The sacran••ē∣tali eating of Christ is the eating of the sacred signe wherby he is figured.
• i 1.1562

  Contra. ad••ers. leg. & Pr••phe•• lib. 2. cap. 9. & de ciuit. Dei. li. 10. cap. 5.
• k 1.1563

  De cons. dist. 2. ¶ hoc est. The sacramēt is not the bo∣die of Christ but after a so••t, that is by a myste••e of signification.
• l 1.1564

  August. in Io∣han. ••ract. 26.
• m 1.1565

  Hier. in Ose. cap. 8.
• n 1.1566

  Ambros. de iis qui initiantur mysteriis. cap. 8.
• o 1.1567

  Cypr. de caena Domini.
• p 1.1568

  Orig. in Mat. cap. 15.

  The wicked eate the Sa∣crament, but they eate not Christ.

  Christ ente∣reth and abi∣deth where he is recei∣ued.
• q 1.1569

  Concil. Nicen. 1.
• * 1.1570

  How Christ is present on the table.
• r 1.1571

  Concil. Nicen. Ibidem.
• s 1.1572

  Chrysost. ad Po••i••. Antioch. hom. 61.
• * 1.1573

  With these two points of cunning the Iesuites per∣ue••t all the fathers they bring for this matter.
• t 1.1574

  Cypr. de vn∣cti••. ••hrysma••is.
• u 1.1575

  Ambros. de iis qui initiantur mysteriis. cap. 3.

  We confe••se a more mightie fruitfull, and heauenly pre∣sence of christ in the Sacra∣ments than the Iesuits do.
• * 1.1576

  Infinite are the contenti∣ons of their Schooles a∣bout these & such other points of their reall and carnall imagina∣tion.
• * 1.1577

  The cheefest Papists are togither by the eares for their corpo∣rall eating of Ch••istes flesh with teeth & iawes.

  The gloze maketh it an heresie to say that Christes fle••h is be∣twixt the teeth
• a 1.1578

  De cons. dist. 2. § tribus gradi∣bus. In Glossa.
• b 1.1579

  Durand. in ra∣tionali diuinor. officior. lib. 4. Rubr. de 6. par••. Canonis.
• c 1.1580

  Ibidem.

  Durandus will haue it in the mouth, but no farder.
• c 1.1581

  Ibidem.

  Durandus will haue it in the mouth, but no farder.
• d 1.1582

  Bon••••em. in 4 sen••em. dist. 13. ••rtic. 2. quae••••a.

  Bonauenture will haue Christ in the bellie, but th••n••e he shal not stir••e.
• e 1.1583

  Ibi••em. T••e••s••lues conf••s••e their owne varietie of ••pa••••n••, touching the co••porall ea∣ting of Christ: and graunt it hard to iudge what to hold.
• f 1.1584

  Ibid••m.
• g 1.1585

  Alex. de Ha∣••••s. part. 3. quaes••. 45.
• h 1.1586

  Thom part. 3. quaest. 80. ar∣••ic. 3.

  The Thomists wil haue Christ in the bellies of mice and hogges if they eate the Sacrament.
• i 1.1587

  Senten. lib. 4. dist. 13.
• k 1.1588

  Anton. part. 3. tit. 13. cap 6. § 3. de ••••fecti∣bus Mis••ae.

  Here is the perfection of their real pre∣sence and cor∣porall ••a••ing of Christes flesh with their teeth.
• l 1.1589

  Ibidem.
• * 1.1590

  Behold chri∣stian reader the iust re∣ward of error, and learne to reuerence the trueth of God.
• * 1.1591

  For this the Iesuits striue.
• * 1.1592

  This grosnes is so wicked that they are ashamed of i••, but they can∣not auoide it.
• * 1.1593

  Senten. lib. 4. dist. 13.
• * 1.1594

  To Canonize and promote the men was the next way to spred their errors.
• p 1.1595

  Chrysost. in Mat. hom 83.
• q 1.1596

  Cyril. cate∣chis. mys••ago. 4.
• * 1.1597

  The creatures maie manie waies miscary: the flesh of Christ be∣cause it is not locallie in∣clo••ed, can not.

  The flesh of Christ not subiect to any vncleanes or corruption.
• r 1.1598

  Ambr••s. de sa∣cramenti••, lib. 1. cap. 5.
• s 1.1599

  Idem de iis qui initiantur my∣steriis. cap. 3.
• t 1.1600

  August. de ••ap••••. contra Donati••••. lib. 3. cap. 10.
• u 1.1601

  Orig. in 15. Mat.
• x 1.1602

  Rabanus. de i••st. Cl••ricor. lib. 1. cap. 31.
• * 1.1603

  The schoole∣men were dri∣uen to this b••u••ishnes by the very se∣quele of their reall presence.
• a 1.1604

  De cons. dist. 2. § qui bene. Glossa ibidem▪

  The Iesuits at this day cannot auoid that filthie doctrine, but by grosse and apparent mockeries.
• b 1.1605

  Thomas Walden tomo 2. qui de sacra∣mentis est. c. 46.

  They might as well defēd they bee n•• mice, or bi••d•• that ••ouch the Sacrament, but Angels in those snapes.
• b 1.1606

  Thomas Walden tomo 2. qui de sacra∣mentis est. c. 46.

  They might as well defēd they bee n•• mice, or bi••d•• that ••ouch the Sacrament, but Angels in those snapes.
• c 1.1607

  De cons. dist. 2. § qui bene: Glossa Ibidem.

  This is a sure waie to keepe m••ce from ea∣ting Christ, but thēselues are in 〈◊〉〈◊〉 great d••unger to ••••••e ••im, as the mice. They haue but the two fo••••••••r 〈…〉〈…〉.
• * 1.1608

  Where Christ sitteth in the glorie of God the father farre from the iniuries and abuses of men or beast••.
• * 1.1609

  No teeth nor iawes can reach to Christ, but onely faith that enioyet•• him in the heauens.

  The Christi∣ans were ne∣uer taught to turne their harts to the host.
• d 1.1610

  Coloss. 3.
• e 1.1611

  August. de bo∣no viduitatis. cap. 16.
• * 1.1612

  Vp to hea∣uen, to the Priests hands. Whither wee must lift vp our harts to seeke f••r Christ.
• f 1.1613

  Ambros. in 1••. Luc. lib. 8. § de duobus in vno lecto. &c.
• g 1.1614

  Idem lib. 10. in 24. cap. Luc. ¶ de hora Do∣minicae resur∣rect.
• h 1.1615

  Chrys. in 10. cap. 1. Cor. hom. 24.
• * 1.1616

  Which dogs & mice can∣not doe.
• j 1.1617

  Hi••r. H••dibi••e quaest. 2.
• k 1.1618

  Paschas. de corp••re & san∣guin. Dom. cap. 52.
• l 1.1619

  August. qu est. Euang. lib. 1. cap. 42.
• * 1.1620

  If Christ be absent in bo∣die from the earth, how can his flesh be really pre∣sent in the host?
• m 1.1621

  Act. 7.
• n 1.1622

  Act. 3.
• * 1.1623

  The flesh of Christ is not on earth.
• o 1.1624

  Act. 1. When he as∣cended he was taken vp from vs.
• p 1.1625

  Iohn. 16.
• q 1.1626

  Iohn. 12.
• r 1.1627

  Iohn 17. Christ going to his father is no more on earth.
• s 1.1628

  Tertul. de re∣surrect. carnis.
• t 1.1629

  August. in E∣uang. Iohan. tract. 50.
• * 1.1630

  What means we haue to take hold of Christ now absent in heauen.
• u 1.1631

  Ibidem.
• * 1.1632

  How Christ is pr••sent with vs, and howe he is absent from vs.
• * 1.1633

  There: not here.
• x 1.1634

  Cyril in Ioan. lib. 6. cap. 14. Christ absent in flesh.
• a 1.1635

  Lib. 9. cap. 21.
• b 1.1636

  Lib. 9. cap. 22.
• c 1.1637

  Lib. 11. cap. 3.
• d 1.1638

  Lib. 11. ca. 21.
• e 1.1639

  Lib. 11. ca. 22.
• f 1.1640

  Orig. tract. in Matth. 33. His bodie ab∣sent from vs. His manhood is neither in all places nor at all times with vs.
• g 1.1641

  Ambr. li. 10. super ••ucae cap. 24. de hora Do∣minicae resurre∣ctionis. christ is not to besought nei∣ther on earth nor in earth.
• h 1.1642

  Gregor. in E∣uang. homil. 2••.
• i 1.1643

  Ibidem homil. 30.
• k 1.1644

  Ibidem hom. 29. The fathers themselues teach both partes of this consequent•• Christ is in heauen; ergo not in earth.
• l 1.1645

  August. epist. 57. ad Darda∣num. That the sub∣staunce of Christs bodie maie be in manie places at one time is a condemned heresie.
• m 1.1646

  August. epist. ad Da••danum. 57.
• * 1.1647

  Nec aliunde quam inde.
• * 1.1648

  In eadem car∣nis forma atque substantia.
• * 1.1649

  If Christes manhood be in euerie place he loo∣seth the truth of his bodie.
• n 1.1650

  In eadem epi. ad finem.
• * 1.1651

  In aliqu•• loco coeli.
• o 1.1652

  August. in Io∣han. tract. 30.
• * 1.1653

  He speaketh of the trueth of the gospel, not of the truth of the bodie of Christ.
• * 1.1654

  β Vno loco esse po••est.
• p 1.1655

  Vigilius con∣tra Eutych. lib. •• cap. 4.
• * 1.1656

  That the flesh of Christ should be e∣uery where was a sequ••l•• of Eutyches heresie.
• * 1.1657

  Christ mā∣hood con••ai∣ned in a place.
• * 1.1658

  From this the Iesuits be vtterly fallen.
• q 1.1659

  Fulgent. ad Thrasimundum Regem. lib. 2. cap. 5.
• * 1.1660

  Christs hu∣mane sub∣stance is not both in hea∣uen & earth at one time.
• * 1.1661

  If Christ be not locall, he is no true man.
• * 1.1662

  The body of Christ contai∣ned in one 〈◊〉〈◊〉 place, not dif∣funded in ma∣nie.
• * 1.1663

  This with∣out question is the Chri∣stian faith, and not the Iesuits vbiqui∣tie or multi∣locitie.
• * 1.1664

  This is a bare shift of the Iesuits, & yet this is all the refuge they haue.
• r 1.1665

  Aug. epist. 57.
• s 1.1666

  Vigil. contra Eutych. li. 4. cap. 4.
• t 1.1667

  Fulgent. lib. 2. cap. 5. ad Thrasi¦mundum regē.
• u 1.1668

  Ibidem.
• * 1.1669

  Fourme is all one with truth and per∣fection.
• a 1.1670

  Ambros. lib. 7. epist. 47.
• b 1.1671

  Leo epist 97.
• c 1.1672

  Chryso. in cap. 2. epist. ad Phil. serm••. 6.
• d 1.1673

  Aug. epist. 57.
• e 1.1674

  Ibidem. Per id quod ho∣mo is substāce as well as shape. Christ can haue no hu∣mane sub∣stance with∣out humane shape.
• f 1.1675

  Aug. epist. 57.
• g 1.1676

  Phili. cap. 3.
• h 1.1677

  Fulgent. ad Thrasimund•••• reg••m. lib. 2. cap. 5.
• i 1.1678

  Theod. dial. 2. It is no hu∣mane bodie that hath not shape, as well as substance.
• k 1.1679

  Ambro. in. 10. cap. ad Heb. & Chrys. hom. 17. in eadem epist.
• l 1.1680

  Chrysost. de Sacerdotio. li. 3.
• * 1.1681

  Chrysostome and Ambrose could not gainesay the rest, and be Catholikes.
• * 1.1682

  The Iesuites would drawe Chrysostome and Ambrose to be of Euty∣ches opinion.
• * 1.1683

  These condi∣tions of a true bodie the manhead of Christ maie haue where∣soeuer it be.
• * 1.1684

  There is but one Christ: & that one Christ hath but one body; which is not euery where.
• m 1.1685

  Aug. de es∣sentia diuinita∣tis.
• n 1.1686

  Vigil. contra Eutych.. lib. 4. cap. 4.
• * 1.1687

  The words of Ambrose and Chrysostome as the Iesuites conster them, are against the verie grounds of our common faith.

  How Chryso∣stome & Am∣brose must be vnderstood.
• o 1.1688

  Chrys. de Sa∣cerdot. lib. 3. Chrysostoms figuratiue & vehement ••peaches much abused by the Iesuits.
• p 1.1689

  Ambros. lib. 10. in 24. Luc.
• q 1.1690

  August. epist. Iohan tract. 1.
• * 1.1691

  Chrysostome himselfe ex∣cludeth the corporall vn∣derstanding of his words.
• r 1.1692

  Chryso. de Sa∣cerdot. lib. 3.
• s 1.1693

  Ibidem.
• t 1.1694

  Chrys. Ibidem.
• * 1.1695

  The power of God must ne∣uer be allead∣ged against his wil, nor our faith which he hath commaunded vs to beleeue.
• u 1.1696

  Tertul. ad∣uers. Praxeam. Gods omni∣potencie a common re∣fuge with he∣retikes.
• * 1.1697

  When wee produce gods power for our fansies a∣gainst his trueth wee make him a lyar, and in subiection to our willes.
• * 1.1698

  The Iesuits pretend god-power against the christian faith.
• * 1.1699

  Or if you do not see your selues condē∣ned in the great councel of Chalcedō, Act. 5. definitio. 2. as he••e••i••s for not belee∣uing it.
• * 1.1700

  A very witty exc••ption.

  Then you be∣leeue the Christian faith to be true euerie where sauing in the Sacra∣ment, and what is that but wilfullie and openlie to denie the faith where you list?
• * 1.1701

  Whatsoeuer he can doe: you bee here∣tikes in the meane time for contradi∣cting the christian faith.
• * 1.1702

  Tertul. aduer. Prae••eam
• * 1.1703

  The Iesuites incurre not onelie Impie∣ties but im∣possibilities.
• a 1.1704

  August. con∣••ra ••austum. li. 20. cap. 11.
• b 1.1705

  Cyril. in Ioan. lib. 15. cap. 3. These fathers were not a∣fraide to saie, Christ coulde not be in ma∣nie places at one time.
• * 1.1706

  The Iesuits whiles they would shunne Eutyches er∣ror, runne headlong in∣to contradi∣ctions & yet stick in the same mire that Eutyches did.
• c 1.1707

  2. Tim. 2.
• d 1.1708

  Hebr. 6.
• e 1.1709

  Aug. de ciuit. Dei. lib. 5. c. 10.
• f 1.1710

  Ambr. lib. 6. epist. 37.
• g 1.1711

  Ibidem.
• * 1.1712

  What thing•• are impossible to God, and why.
• * 1.1713

  Of contradi∣ctions one part is euer false: and all falshood im∣possible to God.
• * 1.1714

  A lie in worke is as bad as a lie in word, & as contrarie to the nature of God.
• * 1.1715

  This is right Iesuitical skill to saie the bo∣die of Christ is and is not contained in a place.
• * 1.1716

  These bee worse than the Poets chi∣mers.
• * 1.1717

  The best g••ounds you haue for these thinges are dreames and miracles of your owne making.
• * 1.1718

  For none of these pointes haue the Ie∣suits so much as one aunci∣ent father.
• * 1.1719

  For none of these pointes haue the Ie∣suits so much as one aunci∣ent father.
• * 1.1720

  For none of these pointes haue the Ie∣suits so much as one aunci∣ent father.
• * 1.1721

  For none of these pointes haue the Ie∣suits so much as one aunci∣ent father.
• * 1.1722

  For none of these pointes haue the Ie∣suits so much as one aunci∣ent father.
• * 1.1723

  You be good at vnderta∣king, but naught at perfourming.
• * 1.1724

  It is enough for the Iesu••••s to call them∣selues Catho∣li••es, though they cannot sh••w one wri∣ter for a thou∣sand yeares that taught the••r transub∣stantiation.
• * 1.1725

  Which will say neuer a word for your purpose.

  This is cited out of S. Au∣sten by frier Walden tomo 2. de Sacramen∣tis cap. 83 a di∣uine worke in D. Allens iudgement. lib. 1. de Euch. sac•• pa. 34••.

  This forgery with others was iudicially allowed by Pope Martin the fifth and his Cardinals in their Con∣sistorie.
• * 1.1726

  This young Austen lac∣ked not onely learning and trueth, but Latine and witte.
• * 1.1727

  Had you not beene asha∣med of your occupation you would haue printed i••.
• * 1.1728

  The woordes did so plainly betray th••m∣selues, that they haue since suppres∣sed the booke for ver••e shame.
• * 1.1729

  Bede likewise forged by Walden.
• * 1.1730

  Citatura The. Walden, tomo 2. vt su∣pra cap. 82.
• * 1.1731

  He neuer wrate anie such booke▪
• * 1.1732

  The credite of both these places lieth onely on frier Walden, who 〈◊〉〈◊〉 fourteene hundreth yeares after Christ, and neuer anie man saw the bookes be∣sides him.

  Why should not a man be∣leeue the le∣gend, as well a•• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Wal∣den, the le∣gend that be∣ing of more authoritie & antiquitie thā the frier?
• * 1.1733

  From Pope Hildebrand downeward, a number of proud and stately pre∣lates haue beene of your faction.
• a 1.1734

  Chrys. sermo. 1. de Eucharist. in Euc••eniis. Chrysostoms words exami∣ned.
• * 1.1735

  That is, thinke not on the clements but lift vp the eyes of thy mind aboue them, as if they were consumed.
• * 1.1736

  Accidents must be con∣sumed as wel as substance by Chryso∣stomes simili∣tude.

  That which is not is no my∣sterie: and Chrysostome saith the my∣steries are consumed.
• * 1.1737

  The end of Chrysostomes admonition and instructi∣on.
• b 1.1738

  Chrys. in Eu∣caeniis. sermo. 1. de Eucharist.
• * 1.1739

  Chrysostome would haue the communi∣cants thinke the Priest is no man and the sacrament is a fierie coale.

  It is wilfulnes to vnderstand one part of this sentence and to per∣uert the o∣ther.
• * 1.1740

  Ibidem.
• * 1.1741

  The right cō∣struction of Chrysostoms wordes.
• * 1.1742

  Cyril. Catechis. mystagogica. 4.
• d 1.1743

  Theophil. in 26. Matth. That the Sa∣crament is no breade: is a new kinde of speach though not much materi∣all for the Ie∣suits.
• * 1.1744

  1. Cor. ca. 10.
• f 1.1745

  1. Cor. 11.
• g 1.1746

  Matth. 26.
• h 1.1747

  Tertul. lib. 1. contra Marcio∣nem.
• i 1.1748

  Clemens Alex. lib. 2. cap. 2. pe∣dago.
• k 1.1749

  Cypr. lib. 2. e∣pist. 3.
• l 1.1750

  Orig. in 15. Matth.
• m 1.1751

  August. tract. in Iohan. 26. The elder fa∣thers affirme the Sacramēt to be bread.
• n 1.1752

  Cyril. in Ioan. lib. 4. cap. 14.
• o 1.1753

  Hesych. in Le∣uit. cap. 8. ii. 12.
• * 1.1754

  What they meane that say it is no bread.
• p 1.1755

  Theophil. in Marc. cap. 14.
• q 1.1756

  Cyril. Catech. mystagogica. 3.
• r 1.1757

  Idem Catech. mystagogica. 4. No breade: that is, no bare and cō∣mon bread.
• s 1.1758

  Iust. Apol. 2.
• t 1.1759

  Iren. lib. 4. cap. 34.
• u 1.1760

  Ambros. de iis qui mysteriis initiantur. ca. 9.
• * 1.1761

  Species panis is not taken for the qualities of the bread without the substance. Wee haue no triall of sub∣stance, but by sense.
• * 1.1762

  Species doeth rather import than exclude the substance of these and all other crea∣tures.
• * 1.1763

  The compari∣son is liker than you are ware of.
• * 1.1764

  No more is that in the bread any sub∣stantiall change.
• * 1.1765

  The word spe∣cies taken for euident truth
• a 1.1766

  Ambros. de iis qui initiantur mysteriis cap. 4.
• b 1.1767

  Idem de sacra∣mentis. li. 4. c. 4.
• * 1.1768

  Lib. 6. cap. 1.
• * 1.1769

  Species is the substance & kind of anie creature.
• * 1.1770

  Ambr. de iis qui initiantur mysteriis. cap. 4.
• * 1.1771

  Ambros. de iis qui initiantur mysteriis. cap. 9.
• f 1.1772

  Ibidem.
• g 1.1773

  Ibidem.
• h 1.1774

  August. de catechizandis rudibus. ca. 26.
• i 1.1775

  Idem in psal. 77.
• k 1.1776

  Idem tract. 26. in Iohan.
• l 1.1777

  Idem in tract. 45. in Iohan.
• * 1.1778

  Species is no∣thing l••sse with the aun∣cient fathers than a shewe without sub∣stance.
• * 1.1779

  Ambro. de iis qui initiantur myster••is. cap. 9.
• n 1.1780

  Aug. ••ermo. ad infantes. Cita∣••ur à Beda. 1. Cor. cap. 11.
• * 1.1781

  A change of the elements they confesse, but not yours.
• * 1.1782

  The chaunge in the elemēts is indeede wonderfull.
• * 1.1783

  One sacramēt in his effect and force is more miracu∣lous than ma∣nie corporall and sensible woonders.
• * 1.1784

  Christs eter∣nall power & trueth is re∣quired for the working of ••••erie sacra∣••••nt.
• * 1.1785

  God is marue∣lous in his sa∣cramēts with∣out transsub∣stantiation.
• * 1.1786

  No father a∣uoucheth the substanee of breade and wine to be chaunged.
• * 1.1787

  De cons. dist. 2. ¶ quia corpus.
• * 1.1788

  This sermon is forged in Eusebius E∣misenus name.
• * 1.1789

  If his age be not knowen, how can his authoritie be esteemed?
• * 1.1790

  Hier. de scrip∣toribus ••ccles. in Euseb. E∣meseno.
• * 1.1791

  The Iesuits say he was a Frenchman.
• * 1.1792

  Canisij Chrono∣logia in 500.
• * 1.1793

  Perhaps, is as much as you cannot tell when.
• * 1.1794

  Emesenus is bishop of E∣mesa in Sy∣ria.
• * 1.1795

  Gracian hath put Emisse∣nus for Eme∣senus by neg∣ligēce or wil∣fulnes choose you whether. No such place in all Europe as whence Emis∣senus shoulde be deriued. This was a common pra∣ctise with the friers in the fa••hers•• wo••••••s.
• * 1.1796

  Canisij Chro∣nologia in anno Dom. 500.
• * 1.1797

  Nothing is more easie than to giue a false inscripti∣on to ai••e booke.
• * 1.1798

  Tomo 2. de sa∣cramentis.

  Walden ci∣teth a peece of this sermō vnder Ansel∣mus name be∣fore he was ware.

  Walden tomo 2. de sacramen∣tis. cap. 68.
• * 1.1799

  You mu••t care for the author before you cite him as a witnes in religion.
• * 1.1800

  They are, but by no ma∣••eriall or cor∣poral change.
• * 1.1801

  How are we made flesh of Christs flesh and bones of his bones, and yet keepe our earthly sub∣stance?
• * 1.1802

  Yea forsooth the next words will tell you so much.
• * 1.1803

  De cons. dist. 2. ¶ quia corpus.
• * 1.1804

  How mortall creatures may be tur∣ned into Christs sub∣stan••e.
• * 1.1805

  Such a chāge is in the sa∣cred ••lements by your au∣thors owne confession.
• * 1.1806

  A thing may be chaunged, and yet keepe his former substance.
• * 1.1807

  Gelasius contr•• Eutich.
• * 1.1808

  A man may soone rack a wo••d to any purpose, if he respect not the intent & concu••rents.
• * 1.1809

  Cypr. de caen•• Domini.
• * 1.1810

  Cypr. Ibidem.
• * 1.1811

  Two substan∣ces in the sa∣crament as there we••e in Christ.
• * 1.1812

  This is one of their surest places.
• * 1.1813

  Virtutis diui∣nae inuisibili efficientia pro∣bans adesse prae∣sentiam.

  Cypr. de ••aena Domini.
• * 1.1814

  Theod. dial. 1.
• * 1.1815

  Ambos. de Sa∣crament. lib. 4. cap. 4.
• * 1.1816

  And so Ber∣tram 700. yeares agoe did expound these wordes of S. Ambrose.
• * 1.1817

  Chrysost. ad Cae∣s••rium.
• * 1.1818

  Theod. dial. 2.
• * 1.1819

  Gelas. contr•• Eutychen.

  De cons. dist. 2. ¶ Hoc est.
• * 1.1820

  It is chaun∣ged by adding grace vnto it, not by taking substance fro it.
• * 1.1821

  By these ex∣amples the fa∣thers declare what chaunge is in the bread.
• * 1.1822

  By these ex∣amples the fa∣thers declare what chaunge is in the bread.
• * 1.1823

  By these ex∣amples the fa∣thers declare what chaunge is in the bread.
• * 1.1824

  1. Cor. 15.
• * 1.1825

  Iren. lib. 4. cap. 34.
• * 1.1826

  De iis qui my∣steriis initian∣tur. cap. 9.
• * 1.1827

  S. Ambrose by his seauen ex∣amples shew∣eth the power of the worde, not the man∣ner of the chaunge that is in the Sa∣crament.
• * 1.1828

  Ambros. de iis qui initiantur mysteriis. cap. 9.
• * 1.1829

  Ambros. de Sa∣cramentis. lib. 4. cap. 4.
• * 1.1830

  Ambr. Ibidem lib. 4. cap. 4.
• * 1.1831

  In this chap∣t••r his exam∣ples are no substantiall chaunges, though he purposely persue the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 point that he did before.
• * 1.1832

  Neuer catch •• Iesuit with∣out a crake.
• * 1.1833

  Some forge∣ries you shew∣ed vs, but one place of anie auncient wri∣ter you nei∣ther did nor can shew vs. The summe of all the ob∣iections that they can make, which are worth the answering.
• * 1.1834

  Wee prooue our exposi••i∣on by other direct places: they haue no∣thing but the generall am∣biguitie of the wordes.
• * 1.1835

  See fol. 756.
• * 1.1836

  Cypr. de caena Domini.
• * 1.1837

  Their after-commers kept the same doctrine for almost a thousand yeares.
• * 1.1838

  Walafrid. Ab∣bas. de rebus eccles. cap. 16. Citatur a Ga∣retio.
• * 1.1839

  Christianus Druthmarus in Matth.
• * 1.1840

  Paschas de cor∣pore & sangui∣ne Domini, cap. 28.
• * 1.1841

  Cit••••••r a Tho. Walden. to. 2. de Sacramentis▪ cap. 65.
• * 1.1842

  Two substan∣ces in the sa∣crifice as well as in Christ.
• * 1.1843

  The doctrine preached in the Saxons Churches of this realme vntill the con∣quest.
• * 1.1844

  The sacramēt is a corrupti∣ble & mutable creature.
• * 1.1845

  The sacramēt is not Christs bodie corpo∣rallie.
• * 1.1846

  This then is not the reall and naturall body of christ.
• * 1.1847

  Lancfrancus and Anselme since the con∣quest the first authors of transsubstan∣tiation within this realme.
• * 1.1848

  Worldly king∣domes & ho∣nors haue bin subiect to An∣tichrist in these latter a∣ges.
• * 1.1849

  The Iesuits are euē drunk with the glory and renowne of them selues and their ad∣herents.
• * 1.1850

  God may call in all times & places whom•• he please, though wee know it not.
• * 1.1851

  It is not of our worthines but of his great mercy that w•• haue his tru∣eth which o∣thers had not.
• * 1.1852

  Mat. 24.
• * 1.1853

  Mat. 24. Luk. 18. Iude.
• * 1.1854

  We must nei∣ther dislike the iustice of God towards others, nor refuse his mercie offe∣red to our selues.

  The Iesuits are so deepe in loue with them-selues & their fa∣thers, that they take skorne to stoope to the grace of God.
• * 1.1855

  What subie∣ction the Ie∣suits yeeld to their Princes that displease the Pope.

  The Iesuites talke a pace of their catho¦licisme but they prooue it verie slow∣ly.
• * 1.1856

  An old pra∣ctise of the Pharisies.
• * 1.1857

  We desire n•• more of their owne friends but to weigh their proofes in these cases.
• * 1.1858

  These God willing shalbe handled afore it be long.
• * 1.1859

  They studie Machauel more than S. Paul.
• * 1.1860

  If they defēd rebellions in open sight, what do they in secret cor∣ners.?
• * 1.1861

  Persons recō∣ciled must in the end be traitors whe∣ther they ment it at first or no•• the Iesuits haue so tempered religion and treasō to flat∣ter the Pope.
• * 1.1862

  Vnlesse they recall this po∣sition, the cō∣clusion is ine∣uitable.